Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o' Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DIVISION BELLS

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I ought to inform the House that I have been told that the bells are out of order. As I see there is a Motion on the Order Paper which might give rise to a Division all I can do is to give notice now that any hon. Member who goes out had better look out for himself. I understand that we are having them put right, but I can give no guarantee that the (bells will be in order by the time Questions are over.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Ministry (Staff)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the number of civil servants employed in his Department at the latest available date.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): At 1st November, 1949, the numbers were 7,640 full-time and 373 part-time.

Sir W. Smitbers: Will the hon. Gentleman say why so many bureaucrats are necessary, and what the proportion of office boys is to each man who is doing the real work, namely, the pilot in the aircraft?

Mr. Lindgren: I rather resent the tone of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, but the number of civil servants at headquarters is 1,600. The remainder are composed of men doing very responsible tasks in the maintenance of aerodromes, air traffic control, radio facilities, and all the rest to enable air transport to be carried on in this country.

Colonel Dower: Is there an increase or decrease in numbers over the last comparable period?

Mr. Lindgren: As compared with the previous year there has been a slight decrease—about 40 or 50.

Air Accident Inquiry, Prestwick (Cost)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what was the cost of the recent inquiry into the loss of the Dutch air liner at Prestwick.

Mr. Lindgren: The total cost to the Exchequer was approximately £3,400.

Mr. Hughes: Could my hon. Friend say how much of this £3,400 was spent on legal fees, and give details?

Mr. Lindgren: Roughly, £1,000 was for the transcript of the evidence and £2,000 was for lawyers' fees.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If two-thirds of the money was spent on lawyers' fees why was not the legal conclusion of the inquiry accepted?

Mr. Lindgren: It only shows the effectiveness of the lawyers' trade union.

Mr. Rankin: Could my hon. Friend say whether the £3,400 covers the 10 days that the inquiry lasted, or the time involved in preparing the report? Further, how many lawyers were paid out of this money?

Mr. Lindgren: I could not answer the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary without notice, but the President of the court received 20 guineas a day while the court was sitting and 20 guineas for his report.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: May I ask a more appropriate question? What was the cost of the prestige lost by the Government through their inept handling of this report?

Mr. Speaker: That is a different question altogether.

B.E.A.C. (Associate Agreements)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what agreements of associateship are in force between British European Airways Corporation and


private operators; and the routes covered, the length of the period for which such agreements are in force, and the companies to which each route is assigned.

Mr. Lindgren: There are at present 19 associate agreements between British European Airways Corporation and 10 air charter companies for scheduled air services on 14 routes. With permission, I will publish full details of these arrangements in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is it not a fact that these agreements are for a

ASSOCIATE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN BRITISH EUROPEAN AIRWAYS CORPORATION AND AIR CHARTER CORPANIES IN FORCE ON 7TH DECEMBER, 1949


Route
Charter Company
Period


Birmingham—Ronaldsway (Isle of Man).
North West Airlines (I.O.M.) Ltd.
…
21st May, 1949, to 31st March, 1951.


Leeds—Ronaldsway (Isle of Man)
North West Airlines (I.O.M.) Ltd.
…
13th June, 1949, to 31st March, 1951.


Lancashire Aircraft Corporation Ltd.
…
25th April, 1949, to 31st March, 1950.


Blackpool—Ronaldsway (Isle of Man).
North West Airlines (I.O.M.) Ltd.
…
7th May, 1949, to 31st March, 1951.


Lancashire Aircraft Corporation Ltd.
…
25th April, 1949, to 31st March, 1950.


Manchester—Ronaldsway (Isle of Man).
North West Airlines (I.O.M.) Ltd.
…
18th April, 1949, to 31st March, 1951.


Sivewright Airways Ltd.
…
28th April, 1949, to 10th April, 1950.


Newcastle—Ronaldsway (Isle of Man).
North West Airlines (I.O.M.) Ltd.
…
21st May, 1949, to 31st March, 1951.


Glasgow—Ronaldsway (Isle of Man).
North West Airlines (I.O.M.) Ltd.
…
18th May, 1949, to 31st March, 1951.


Prestwick—Ronaldsway (Isle of Man).
Scottish Aviation Ltd.
…
1st June, 1949, to 31st May, 1951.


Weston-Super-Mare—Cardiff
Western Airways Ltd.
…
25th May, 1949, to 31st October, 1950


Cambrian Air Services Ltd.
…


Croydon—Sandown (Isle of Wight)
Air Enterprises Ltd.
…
1st May, 1949, to 30th April, 1950.


Portsmouth—Cowes
Somerton Airways Ltd.
…
30th April. 1949, to 29th April, 1951.


Southampton—Cowes
Somerton Airways Ltd.
…
30th April, 1949, to 29th April, 1951.


Northolt—Blackpool
Lancashire Aircraft Corporation Ltd.
…
2nd May, 1949, to 31st March, 1950.


Cardiff (via Guernsey)—Jersey
Cambrian Air Services Ltd.
…
16th May, 1949, to 8th April, 1951.


Lympne (Car Ferry Service)—Le Touquet.
Silver City Airways Ltd.
…
14th April, 1949, to 31st December, 1949.


Southampton (via Madeira)—Lisbon.
Aquila Airways Ltd.
…
30th July, 1949, to 31st October, 1950.

Ground Controlled Approach System

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what regulations he has made prescribing minimum conditions of

maximum period of one to two years? How does the Parliamentary Secretary expect any business to be run in a businesslike way when this time is insufficient to allow depreciation on the equipment? Will he bear this point in mind, if he is to continue with this system, and see that the operators get a proper deal?

Mr. Lindgren: The conditions under which the agreements are made are well-known to those asking for them. It is true that the agreements to which I have just referred are, in the main, for one year, but some of them are for two years.

Following are the details:

visibility and cloud base under which aircraft are permitted to use the Ground Controlled Approach system; and what are these minimum conditions at each United Kingdom airfield equipped with the system.

Mr. Lindgren: No such regulations are in force.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Could the hon. Gentleman say what are the minimum visibility conditions which are prescribed at Prestwick in connection with the use of the Ground Controlled Approach system, and whether such conditions were in force at the time of the K.L.M. accident on 20th October, 1948?

Mr. Lindgren: There are no regulations as to visibility in operation anywhere; it is for the operator to lay down the conditions in which operations shall take place. The only things we have promulgated are break-off heights, etc., for aircraft in the event of an approach by G.C.A.

Bristol Brabazon II (Service Route)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, on what route it is proposed by his Department that the Bristol Brabazon II aircraft will operate; and when such operations are expected to commence.

Mr. Lindgren: The Brabazon is designed for use on the London—New York route, but it is too early to predict when operations might begin.

Saunders Roe Princess Flying-Boat

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, on what route it is proposed by his Department that the Saunders Roe Princess aircraft will operate; and when such operations are expected to commence.

Mr. Lindgren: The Saunders Roe Princess flying-boat is unlikely to be in service before 1953. It is too early for the responsible authorities to decide on what route or routes the boat will operate.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS (RUSSIA)

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British troops, naval ratings or

merchant seamen arrested by the Russian authorities during the war are still in prison.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): To the best of our knowledge, none, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY AND AUSTRIA

Communications

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what restrictions still exist on communications and passage from Western Austria to Western Germany, and vice versa; and what efforts are being made to remove them.

Mr. Mayhew: As the reply is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

There are no special restrictions on travel from Western Austria to Western Germany. Entry of Austrians to Western Germany is subject only to the restrictions applying to travel from any European country. Applications by German nationals for Austrian visas have, however, to be submitted through the Austrian representatives and the Austrian Foreign Ministry to a quadripartite working party in Vienna. This procedure will, no doubt, be amended after the Austrian Treaty comes into force when the Austrian Government will be solely responsible for, the regulations governing entry into their country. There are no air services in operation between Western Germany and Western Austria although there are two lines between Frankfurt and Vienna.

The following restrictions on communication by post, telegraph, and telephone between Western Germany and Western Austria are at present in force: Letters may not contain money and are restricted in weight to 500 grammes. Printed letters are prohibited, except those dealing solely with family matters. There is no parcels post. The following kinds of telegrams are not admitted: money-order, luxury, express, reply-paid, night-delivery, picture, and code. The only priority admitted is "urgent," and costs double rate. The only telephone calls not admitted are fixed-time, subscription, and reversed-charge, and these are not made obligatory


by the International Telephone Regulations. There is some delay in both telephone and telegraphic traffic, due to shortage of circuits.

In Germany a message cannot be sent to another country by telephone or telegraph without first obtaining a licence from the German authorities. The purpose of this is to control expenditure of foreign exchange. In Austria a call cannot be made to Germany without first obtaining the permission of the Censorship. Of these restrictions, the only ones imposed by the German authorities are those required for exchange control, i.e. those on the sending of money and on telegraph or telephone messages abroad. No effort is therefore being made to have these removed. All the others are imposed by the Quadripartite Signals Committee for Austria. Frequent efforts have been made by the British, United States, and French members of this Committee to lift those restrictions not needed for exchange control, but hitherto the agreement of the Russians to this has not been obtained. These efforts are still being made.

Civil Aviation (German Employees)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the maximum number of Germans allowed to be employed in the Civil Aviation Branch of the Control Commission; and what steps he has taken to ensure that the number will not be exceeded, and that the men will be employed only in the limited categories of work at present laid down.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the duties upon which it is proposed to employ Germans under the Civil Aviation Branch of the Control Commission for Germany.

Mr. Mayhew: The employment of Germans in civil aviation in Western Germany is still under tripartite discussion. At the present time, up to 870 Germans are employed by the Civil Aviation Branch in the British zone on clerical or menial duties, or in connection with ground transport or the maintenance of buildings and other works. Approximately 130 are employed on duties peculiar to civil aviation, but none are

employed on duties which involve flying or a knowledge of flying.

Mr. Lipson: Exactly what matters are still under discussion? Is the number to be increased, and has my hon. Friend any comparable figures for the numbers employed in the other zones?

Mr. Mayhew: I think it is to get a uniform procedure in all the zones that these talks are taking place. I understand that they are also concerned with exactly where we are to draw the line in this matter.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Arising out of the last answer, can the Under-Secretary say whether these discussions contemplate the employment of Germans on any duties directly connected with the operation of aircraft, and can he give an assurance that before such a step is taken this House will be consulted?

Mr. Mayhew: I can give an assurance that the duties will not involve flying or a knowledge of flying, but undoubtedly there will be certain jobs in connection with civil aviation which should be done by Germans and cannot be done by British citizens.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Would the Under-Secretary of State bear in mind that there are many hundreds of British people who have experience in connection with the operating of aircraft and who are unemployed at the moment? Would it not be far better to make use of these men and to delay giving any authority to the Germans until we can be absolutely certain that they are not going to make trouble?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. It would be unwise to suggest that there are not many jobs on civil aviation airfields in connection with such things as the inventory of stores and matters of that kind which can be done by Germans.

Detained Soldier (Soviet Action)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make regarding the retention by the Soviet authorities from May, 1947, to December, 1949, of Private Noel Moncaster, Royal Pioneer Corps, British Army of the Rhine

Mr. Mayhew: Private Moncaster reported to the British Consulate in Berlin on 29th November. He stated that in September, 1947, he had crossed inadvertently into the Soviet zone, was arrested by the Soviet authorities and later sentenced without trial to a period of one to three years imprisonment on charges of spying. He reports that in October, 1949, he applied for work outside the prison and was given permission to work in a factory under the name of Becker, but was warned that he should not attempt to escape. Private Moncaster states that he later worked as a labourer near Merseburg and from there escaped by train to Berlin.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Can the Under-Secretary say whether His Majesty's Government have delivered any protest to the Soviet authorities about this treatment of the soldier?

Mr. Mayhew: We protested to them after we had had no satisfactory replies to our previous inquiries about Private Moncaster.

Professor Savory: Does not the Under-Secretary think that a demand ought to be made for compensation for this unfortunate victim?

Mr. Mayhew: I should say that Private Moncaster's story is not wholly satisfactory. It leaves unexplained where he was from May to September, 1947. I do not think it would support further protests as it stands.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA (M.P.s' VISIT)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what facilities are being given by his Department to a party of hon. Members who are to visit Yugoslavia at the end of December.

Mr. Mayhew: Those normally afforded to British Members of Parliament travelling abroad.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Would the Under-Secretary make it quite plain that these hon. Members are travelling to Yugoslavia in their unofficial capacities as ordinary Members of Parliament and not as an official delegation.

Mr. Mayhew: I do not think that there is any need to make any statement. I think that the position is quite clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINIAN ARAB REFUGEES

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the official rations allowed to the Palestinian Arab refugees.

Mr. Mayhew: The United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees is at present providing a ration of 1,650 calories a day for 940,000 Arab refugees.

Mr. Reid: Are these rations sufficient to maintain these people in health, or only to prevent them from dying?

Mr. Mayhew: The rations are undoubtedly scarcely adequate, but I understand that the deathrate is no worse there than it is for Arab communities in that part of the world. At present their health is remarkably satisfactory on the whole.

Sir Ronald Ross: Is the Minister satisfied that the present conditions of these Arab refugees, in camps in the desert, will not lead to increased mortality during the hardships of winter, and that steps have been taken to prevent this?

Mr. Mayhew: I am afraid that the risk always exists. I can only say that His Majesty's Government have done everything they possibly can to make a real contribution to solving this problem.

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the fact that the Under-Secretary said that the total number of rations to be issued is more than 900,000, are we to understand that the number of refugees is increasing?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. There is a later Question on that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

War Memorial

Mr. John Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why a grant of £50,000 has been made from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund to the Kenya Institute for the purpose of erecting a war memorial.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): The position is not quite as suggested in the Question. The Kenya Institute of Nairobi is designed to be a social and cultural centre for members of all races and sections of the community. It will be a common meeting ground, and of importance in promoting good race relations and cultural purposes Apart from the grant from the Colonial Development and Welfare Vote, financial support has already been promised by the Kenya War Memorial Trustees, the National Theatre Committee and the Kenya Government, which has also supplied the land free of charge. The British Council Representative in Nairobi and a number of prominent citizens, including the Mayor, are co-operating with the Governor in this project. The scheme has the full support of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hynd: While the Minister will realise that if this scheme is carried on in the spirit which he indicated it will be a welcome contribution towards Colonial life, is he not also aware of the difficulties of such a scheme, and will he therefore keep close contact with it in order to see that it is in fact directed towards the purposes that he has mentioned?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I have no reason to suppose that it will not be carried on in that spirit, but the scheme will be examined from time to time.

Colonel Dower: Is the Under-Secretary aware that in Kenya they very much appreciate this scheme, as a tribute of appreciation for the great part they played during the war, not only in Madagascar and the Italian Territories, but in India?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, Sir.

Group Farm Planning

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in group farm planning on contours with African co-operation in Kenya.

Mr. Rees-Williams: As the answer is rather long and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that some natives have been imprisoned because they were not planting on a contour basis? Is he aware that this may be due to the fact that the notices are given out in English and other languages which the natives cannot understand?

Mr. Rees-Williams: No, Sir, I am not aware of that. I am aware that there is increasing co-operation from the Africans with regard to voluntary terracing. I do not accept, without examination, my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Baldwin: Is not the Minister aware that unless this kind of operation is extended in the native reserves many large areas of Africa will be turned into desert? Does he not think that some of the money now being spent on colleges to turn out black-coated workers who are surplus to requirements, might be better spent in turning out African agricultural officers for the reserves?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I have answered the first part of the question. In regard to the second part, we are encouraging the training of African agricultural officers.

Mr. Davies: If I give my hon. Friend particulars and facts about this matter, will he investigate them and see that the instructions are clear, so that these people may understand what they are expected to do?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Certainly.

Following is the answer:

Many schemes for group farming and contour terracing are in progress. I cannot give details of all of them but at Makueni, 480 square miles of uninhabited land are being turned into group farms of about 120 acres each. In Fort Hall District, 5,500 miles of terraces were built with the aid of communal effort in 1947 and 1948, and in Kiambu District 2.000 miles. At Fort Hall, in addition to the terracing, 41,000 compost pits were built in 1947–48 and 6,100 cattle sheds built. There are between 50 and 60 projects in progress or in prospect for African land betterment and settlement. Over £3 million was set aside in the Colony's development plan for this work.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA (RAILWAYS AND PORTS)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the expenditure up to date on railways and ports serving the groundnut areas in Tanganyika; and what proportion of this has been or will be paid for by the East African Railways and Harbours Administration.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The figure for expenditure to date on the new port and railway in the Southern Province is not available. The estimated cost is £4,650,000. The figure for the general improvements to the Central Line Railway and the port of Dar-es-Salaam is £ 2½ million. The answer to the second part of the Question is that the whole capital cost of these works will ultimately be met by the East African Railways and Harbour Administration.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, according to "The Times" Nairobi correspondent, the East African Railways and Harbours Adminstration are hurt by the claim of the Minister of Food the other day that among the achievements of the Overseas Food Corporation was the making of these ports and harbours?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I think there is some misunderstanding here. The Overseas Food Corporation are acting as agents of the Administration to supervise construction, and eventually it is intended that their expenses shall be refunded to them by the harbour and railway board, so they are in fact expending a considerable amount of money.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is it a fact that the O.F.C. have in return to guarantee a minimum amount of traffic every year, and, if so, can the hon. Gentleman tell us the minimum amount?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is alluding to the Central Line or the Southern Line. Perhaps he will put the question down.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that in the Mikidani Harbour scheme big capital expenditure is justified before the 20,000 acre pilot scheme has shown any results at all?

Mr. Rees-Williams: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not only the groundnut scheme which will be served by this port and that it is in fact essential to have a good port in the southern area in order to develop the whole of that region of Tanganyika.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA (NEWSPAPERS)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reason the Governor of Jamaica has prohibited local newspapers from publishing a second edition daily even though the total allocation of newsprint is not thereby exceeded, especially in view of the fact that Government announcements are normally made at 5 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend has no information on this point which, as a matter of internal administration, is one for the Jamaica Executive Council under the Island's constitution.

Mr. Gammans: Does the hon. Gentleman support an order under which there is a clear differentiation between one newspaper and another which prevents a certain newspaper from publishing a late edition at all?

Mr. Rees-Williams: These matters of detail are for the Jamaica Government. We cannot interfere in every detail of what they are doing.

Mr. Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the matter again? When I was in Jamaica six months ago there was some local feeling that the Governor was using his official position against these newspapers because he had a personal grudge against them.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I cannot possibly accept any such suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA

Sulphurtone Supplies, Leper Colonies

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the supply of sulphurtone to the leper colonies in Malaya is being maintained; and if he is satisfied that the amount sent is sufficient to meet their requirements.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The Government of the Federation of Malaya have ordered from the Crown Agents this year, and been supplied with, one million tablets of sulphetrone and 100 k.g. of sulphetrone powder. There is no shortage and orders can be promptly delivered. I have no reason to think the quantity ordered, and sent, is insufficient.

Mr. Awbery: Has medical science discovered a more effective method of treating leprosy, and if so, would my hon. Friend consider the use of the new method against the sulphurtone methods adopted up to the present time?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I have no expert knowledge about this, but I will inquire from our medical advisers whether any better method is known.

German Synthetic Rubber

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in view of the vital interests of Malaya in rubber production, to what extent his Department was consulted about the proposed level of production of synthetic rubber by the West German Republic.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I understand that the manufacture of synthetic rubber in the German Federal Republic is still prohibited. The question therefore does not arise.

Mr. Fletcher: As the dismantling of synthetic rubber plants in Germany has ceased, is it not certain that the question of their producing synthetic rubber will arise? Will the hon. Gentleman make certain through the Colonial Office that the interests of Malaya are safeguarded?

Mr. Stokes: Before my hon. Friend answers that question, may I ask him whether it is not a logical sequence to preventing the Germans from producing a sufficient quantity of the kind of things they normally produce, such as steel, that we should allow them to produce synthetic things like rubber in order to balance their budget?

Mr. Rees-Williams: The last supplementary question was of a rhetorical nature. As to the first supplementary question, I will inquire into the position in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I know that dismantling has

stopped, but it does not necessarily follow that the plant will be used to manufacture synthetic rubber.

Cocoa Cultivation

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what success has attended the planting of cocoa in Malaya before the war; and what further areas it is now proposed to open up there in cocoa.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Cocoa cultivation in Malaya before the war was confined to less than five acres planted for observation purposes at agricultural stations, plus 200–300 trees planted by smallholders in various parts of the peninsula. The experimental areas at agricultural stations and on estates now amount to some 400 acres while approximately 4,500 acres of land is at present under application by two commercial firms for large scale planting. A Colonial Development and Welfare scheme has recently been made for establishing a quarantine nursery near Singapore at which seeds imported from Africa and elsewhere can be grown in isolation and under supervision.

Mr. Reid: Can my hon. Friend say if the cultivation so far has proved to be a success, because, as he knows well, cocoa does not grow on certain soils? Is there a chance of an extension of cocoa growing in Malaya in order to make up for the loss of cocoa production in West Africa?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is not the reason. The reason is to diversify the economy of Malaya. We have had a report which says that the soil is suitable in some areas. Unfortunately the person who has been taking out the seeds has been delayed at Cairo and it may mean that some of them will be a little off-colour before he gets there.

Penang (Petition)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take on the representations made by the citizens of Penang for secession from the Federation of Malaya; and if it is proposed to appoint a Royal Commission on the subject.

Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend has now received the petition,


but awaits the comments of the High Commissioner. In the meantime I should prefer not to make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA

Franchise (Commission of Inquiry)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to consult the people of British Guiana on changes in the Franchise and the composition of the Legislative Council in view of the fact that a Commission of Inquiry is to visit the Colony next year.

Mr. Rees-Williams: In announcing the Commission of Inquiry the Governor has invited all concerned in the Colony to give these important matters earnest thought, and to be ready to submit their considered views to the Commission.

Mr. Rankin: May I take it that the reply of my hon. Friend covers the workingclass, both organised and unorganised, who may have views on that matter? Also, would he say when the Commission will set out next year? Will it be at the beginning, the middle, or the end of the year?

Mr. Rees-Williams: As to the latter part of the supplementary question, it is possible that the Commission will arrive in British Guiana about the end of 1950 so as to be ready for the next election of the Council in 1953. As to the first part of the supplementary question, I am sure that the Governor will take every opportunity of consulting all classes in the community.

Rice Production

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in investigating possibilities of expanding rice cultivation in British Guiana; and when an expert report will be available.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The two American experts who visited British Guiana recently have now sent an interim report to the Governor which is receiving his close attention. Their full report is expected this month.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN (ARAB STUDENTS)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Arabs of Aden are attending the Gordon Memorial College at Khartoum; and how many scholarships or grants have been given by the Government of Aden for this purpose.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Two from the Protectorate, none from the Colony. No scholarships or grants have been given by the Government of the Colony.

Mr. Rankin: Can my hon. Friend say if any of the students come to this country to complete their education, and, if so, what number?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I doubt if any of the students who have been at the Gordon Memorial College do, but perhaps my hon. Friend will let me have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Electricity Board (African Artisans)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans for the training of African artisans have been prepared by the Uganda Electricity Board.

Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend is asking the Governor for details and will write to my hon. Friend when he receives them.

Disturbances (Commission of Inquiry)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the disturbances in Uganda in April has yet been received; in what form the findings and evidence will be made public; and if he will make a statement;
(2) what was the composition of the Commission of Inquiry into the disturbances in Uganda this year; and how many Africans were members of this body.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The Commissioner of Inquiry is the late President of the West African Court of Appeal. His


report has not yet been received. My right hon. Friend is consulting the Governor as to the form of publication.

Scotland Yard Inspector's Visit

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the purpose of the official visit of a high-ranking officer of the Special Branch of Scotland Yard to Uganda; and whether the Government of Uganda are defraying the cost.

Mr. Rees-Williams: An Inspector of Scotland Yard is visiting Uganda to advise on modern police methods and organisation. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "Yes."

Mr. Platts-Mills: As this high ranking officer is not advising on normal police methods but is a member of the Special Branch, and is advising particularly on spying on the working people in Uganda, is it really desirable that the people of Uganda should have to pay in order that their white masters should spy on them?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I do not accept that question at all. The officer is going out to advise on normal police matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST (COCOA TREE DISEASE)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) how many cocoa trees in the Gold Coast were cut out in the latest 12 months for which figures are now available; and how many trees contracted the swollen shoot disease during the same period;
(2) how many cocoa trees in the Gold Coast it is now estimated will be cut out in the next 12 months; and how many will become affected by the swollen shoot disease in the same period.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The number of trees cut out in the 12 months ended 30th September, 1949, was slightly over 3,300,000. It was estimated that during the first five months of that period about 4 million trees had become infected. It is not possible to foretell how many trees will be infected during the next 12 months, nor can an estimate be given at present of the number of diseased trees which are likely to be cut out during that period. Preparations are, however,

now being made for a greatly intensified campaign against the disease as soon as the current harvest is over.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is it true to say that the number of trees which are to be cut out during the next year will not be as' great as the number of trees which will be diseased, and can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what active steps His Majesty's Government are taking in order to prevent this very serious decline in the tree population out there?

Mr. Rees-Williams: It is possible that what the hon. Gentleman says in the first part of his supplementary question is true because the object of the campaign is to cut belts in order to prevent the disease spreading into new areas. It may be that in certain parts the disease will gain more rapidly than the number of trees cut out. As to the second part of the supplementary question, it is proposed, subject to the approval of the Legislative Council, to introduce compulsion in areas where the majority of the farmers are in favour of cutting out.

Mr. Sorensen: When my hon. Friend speaks of an intensified campaign, it is obvious that it will be more intense than the campaign up to now. Does he mean that it now involves the active co-operation of the native authorities and large numbers of Africans who were previously hostile to the campaign?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I do not remember using the word in that sense, but it means that there is an increasing participation by Africans in the cutting out campaign, and therefore it means that the minority can have compulsion applied to them.

Professor Savory: Have specimens of these trees been submitted to the School of Tropical Medicine in connection with the University of London in Keppell Street?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I do not know. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a question down.

Mr. Scollan: As it must be over 12 months since first these cuttings took place, has there been any appreciable improvement in the places where the heaviest cutting out took place in coping with this disease?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Of course, nothing at all remains in those places where they are cut out. The campaign has not gone as rapidly as we had hoped. We had to get the support of the farmers and I think we have now got the support of the majority.

Mr. Langford-Holt: In view of the considerable opposition with which the policy has met from farmers in the Gold Coast, can the hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that there will be large areas in which the majority of farmers will support the policy?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, I think that may well be so.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA (IMMIGRATION BILL)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the provisions of the new Immigration Bill recently introduced into the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Rees-Williams: As this Bill contains 18 Clauses I will send a copy to the hon. Member. It has so far only received its First Reading before the Northern Rhodesia Legislative Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS

Rice Production

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if consideration is being given, to the possibility of expanding rice cultivation in British Honduras.

Mr. Rees-Williams: An expert visited British Honduras last summer to investigate the prospects of increased rice production. His report is now being studied by the Governor.

Mr. Hughes: Does that report cover the area of the middle reaches of the Belize River as well as the southern area where rice has been grown already?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am not quite certain. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question down.

Medical Services

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are

being taken to improve the medical services of British Honduras.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Following the construction of a new 20-bed convalescent ward last year, further expansion of the Belize Hospital is planned to provide a new Out-patients block, an additional female ward of 18 beds and an enlarged venereal disease clinic. Ten dispensaries are also to be constructed throughout the rural districts of the Colony. It has recently been proposed that the staff of the Medical Department should be strengthened by the creation of a specialist post of Resident Surgeon.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Miners' Strike, Enugu

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many miners employed at the Enugu mine staged a stay down strike; and what steps were taken to bring them to the surface.

Mr. Rees-Williams: As the Commission of Inquiry has now begun work I prefer not to make any further statements on matters which are within its terms of reference.

Mr. Gallacher: But is it not the case that these miners went slow, 250 were dismissed but refused to come out of the pit, that the officials refused to allow food and water to be sent down to them, and even shut off the air? How was it possible for the Minister, alleging to be a Socialist, to pursue such a Tory—

Mr. Speaker: This matter is regarded as sub judice at the present moment and I do not think Questions are in Order.

Industrial Disputes (Picketing)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what Colonies picketing during industrial, disputes is illegal or prohibited, temporarily or otherwise.

Mr. Rees-Williams: In no Colonial Territory is peaceful picketing prohibited by law. In a number of territories, picketing in such numbers or otherwise in such manner as to be calculated to intimidate, is unlawful.

Mr. Sorensen: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the latter reference applies to Nigeria, and can he say whether peaceful picketing has been prohibited in Nigeria at any time during the last six months?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, it does apply to Nigeria. As to the latter part of the supplementary question, not so far as I am aware.

Censorship

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what censorship of correspondence and the Press is now operated in Nigeria.

Mr. Rees-Williams: My information is that Press censorship is in force in the Eastern Provinces only. I am not aware that any censorship of correspondence is in operation.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that cables from this country to Nigeria have not been received for some time after despatch, and is he also aware that there is some evidence that correspondence from this country had been mutilated or defaced before reaching there?

Mr. Rees-Williams: No, I am not aware of that. I may say that the Governor has announced that the state of emergency will end tomorrow, in which case this matter will not arise again.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOGOLAND (EWE PEOPLE)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the unfortunate tension and apprehension existing among the Ewe people he will give an undertaking that action on the proposals in the Coursey Report will not prejudice future negotiations with the French Government respecting the possible unification of Ewe peoples and self-government for Togoland.

Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend has asked the Governor to consult the accredited representatives of the people of that territory and to let him have their considered views and the Governor's own recommendations. Until that has been done he prefers to reserve judgment entirely and not to give an undertaking of any kind.

Mr. Sorensen: Then do I take it that the Coursey Report does not prejudice the possible development that I have mentioned in the Question?

Mr. Rees-Williams: The Coursey Report said this was a matter of considerable difficulty and delicacy, or words to that effect, and the whole question is being examined, as I have said.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES (U.N.O. RESOLUTIONS)

42. Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) why the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations General Assembly, on 15th November last, voted against a resolution, which was passed by 49 votes to 1, endorsing the Trusteeship Committee's recommendations asking that the indigenous inhabitants of Trust Territories be given a greater participation in the economic life of the territories and reaffirming the principle that the interests of those inhabitants must be paramount in all economic plans or policies in the territories;
(2) why the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations General Assembly, on 15th November last, voted against a resolution, which was passed by 52 votes to 1, endorsing the abolition of child marriages, corporal punishment and discriminatory laws and practices in Trust Territories.

Mr. Rees-Williams: As the answer is long, I will, with permission, make a statement in reply at the end of Questions.

Later:

Mr. Rees-Williams: The, recommendations of the Trusteeship Council, which this Resolution endorsed, were not limited to the suggestion mentioned in my hon. Friend's Question, and were not all such as His Majesty's Government could accept without qualification. The Trusteeship Council recommendations contained references to the Cameroons Development Corporation and the Gold Coast Cocoa Marketing Board, the implications of which His Majesty's Government considered objectionable. The Resolution also expressed concern at the lack of budgetary autonomy in certain Trust Territories which is neither practicable nor desirable in our West African Trust Territories.
Our representative in the Fourth Committee made it clear, however, that it is our policy to give the indigenous inhabitants the greatest possible share in controlling the development of their territories.
We are as anxious as anyone to see the speediest possible disappearance of the practice of child marriage in our Trust Territories. This practice is rapidly disappearing, but it is unrealistic to suppose that such traces as still exist of age long customs and practices can be abolished by legislation.
As regards corporal punishment, the Resolution demands "immediate abolition." This subject for some years has received much study both from our Advisory Committee and the Secretary of State and the offences for which this form of punishment may be awarded in our territories are already being progressively reduced. Our aim is its total abolition as rapidly as circumstances permit.
As regards the examination of discriminatory laws and practices in Trust Territories, two years ago my right hon. Friend called for a survey of this nature in respect of all our dependent territories. The survey is still in progress, but it should be borne in mind that much legislation which can be classed as discriminatory, is designed and works in favour of the indigenous inhabitants.
The United Kingdom representative explained our position to the General Assembly on these lines.

Mr. Dumpleton: Is my hon. Friend aware that while the explanation he has now given will go some way towards allaying the concern that the full announcement of this vote in the United Nations Press release caused to many people in this country, there is a necessity for reaffirming that the policy of the Government is as in the terms put down in the Question? Also, will he use his influence with the Lord President of the Council for a Debate on the whole subject of the United Nations Trusteeship Committee as soon as possible?

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Is not our delegation at the United Nations getting itself into an impossible position by seeming to oppose principles with which in fact the Government agree; and will not my hon. Friend do everything possible to

allay the mischief which has been caused by some of the votes which have been recently cast by this country, almost alone, against progressive principles.

Mr. Stanley: Do I understand that having voted against these resolutions the Government do not intend to implement them?

Mr. Rees-Williams: The resolutions to which objection was taken were, generally speaking, on specific points, and we do not accept those recommendations.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not it very undesirable that arising out of those votes we should have references made to inferior peoples in the United Nations voting against Britain, and the impression created that the United Nations is all right so long as it keeps to the job for which it is supposed to be founded—attacking the Soviet Union?

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is it not the case that there are quite a lot of discriminatory laws and practices in some countries which are misusing the machinery of the United Nations to stir up trouble in British Colonies?

Mr. Platts-Mills: Will my hon. Friend agree that these Questions and answers and the votes under discussion show the hideous reality behind all the fine talk about colonial emancipation?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Our record is second to none and better than most.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is there any particulars in which His Majesty's Government have not completely fulfilled the provisions of the trusteeship articles of the Charter, and will the Government resist any attempt to impose obligations which are outside the Charter altogether?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is our view; that is what we are doing.

Mr. Wyatt: Can my hon. Friend explain how it is that this country which has the finest record in colonial affairs of any country for the last 30 years, nevertheless, always seems to be appearing at the United Nations as voting against progressive motions.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Because the recommendations put up are often entirely unrealistic.

Mr. Bramall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the first answer he gave indicates that the Government stand by the policy of the paramountey of the interests of the native people.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I set it out quite clearly. Our policy is:
to give the indigenous inhabitants the greatest possible share in controlling the development of their territories.

Mr. Scollan: Can the Government get somebody to represent this country at the United Nations who can make it clear that the colonial policy of this country is as advanced as anything proposed by these peoples at the United Nations? At the moment we are suffering from the disability of being misrepresented right, left and centre by our own representatives.

Mr. Stanley: On that point, although I think we all agree that the representative from the Colonial Office on this Committee put up a very good show, would not it have been wise, in view of its importance, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies to have undertaken the work himself?

Mr. Rees-Williams: May I say that we were very fortunate in having the advocacy of the Minister of State from the Foreign Office, who made a magnificent speech on this question in the General Assembly. Furthermore, last year the case was presented by a colonial, Mr. Grantley Adams, who made a great impression, and I do not agree that our case has gone by default at all.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not in fact playing into the hands of those people who are trying to stir up trouble in the Colonies to cast our vote at the United Nations in a way which goes contrary to the magnificent record of everything that this administration is doing in progressive colonial administration?

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the procedure laid down in the Charter has not been followed by the United Nations, he proposes to continue to transmit to the Secretary-General information on non-self-governing territories under Article 73 (e) of the Charter.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, Sir. We have accepted this obligation under the Charter and shall continue to discharge it;

this does not of course mean that we in any sense acquiesce in the use to which the information is being put, which goes far beyond the provisions of the Charter.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Can the hon. Gentleman say definitely if the United Nations does not fulfil its part of the Charter, can we be expected to go on taking this lying down for ever? Will the hon. Gentleman consult other Colonial Powers in order to reach some more satisfactory modus vivendi in this matter?

Mr. Rees-Williams: The hon. Gentleman has raised a large question. I have given the answer which I think is satisfactory in the circumstances.

Mr. Stanley: Could I ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is any intention that a statement shall be made by the Minister of State on his return, and that an opportunity shall be given to the House to debate this extremely important matter which embraces no party political issues and gives great concern to hon. Members in all quarters?

Mr. Rees-Williams: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that my right hon. Friend, in answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), promised a full statement on this matter in the form of either a White Paper or a Colonial Paper. The other question which the right hon. Gentleman has raised is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of recent decisions by the United Nations Assembly, he proposes to continue to send a representative to the special committee set up by the General Assembly of the United Nations, outside the Charter, to examine information on non-self-governing territories transmitted to the Secretary-General.

Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a statement on this matter.

Mr. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, unlike the transmission of information, this at any rate is quite outside the Charter?

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of recent decisions of the United Nations Assembly, he will give an assurance that there will be no transfer of British responsibility for trust territories and other non-self-governing territories to organs of the United Nations.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I can certainly give such an assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES (PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the. Prime Minister if he is prepared to recommend that a Royal Commission be set up to investigate the problem of Colonial government, with a view to considering the advisability of establishing Colonial representation in the House of Commons from each of the Colonies.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I: have been asked to reply. No, Sir.

Mr. Davies: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that most explicit reply, may I ask him, as he is not prepared to set up a Royal Commission, whether he does not think the time has now arrived when this Parliament should reorganise its attitude to the system of Colonial Government in an industrial, twentieth-century world? Does he not believe that this would demonstrate to the Colonies that we really want to feel them at one with this House of Commons?

Mr. Morrison: I do not disagree with the excellent sentiment behind the question of my hon. Friend. The reason why we did not think this course was wise is that there are round about 50 Colonies and Dependencies which all have individualities and whose constitutions vary very much. It was thought that it was better to go on handling them in regard to their individual circumstances, encouraging development towards self-government, and so on, rather than set up a Royal Commission which we thought would get into great difficulties in view of the large variety of Colonial Territories.

Dr. Segal: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this policy has been carried

out by France for a great many years, and is there any justifiable reason why this country should lag behind France in this respect?

Mr. Morrison: Different countries have different ways. My own impression is that although France has representation of its Colonial Empire in the Chamber, I doubt if there is the same degree of development of self-government which our Colonies possess.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the French experience is not altogether a happy one in this respect?

Mr. T. Reid: Is it not a fact that there are 65 million people in the Colonies as against 50 million here, and that if they were all given votes and representation in Parliament in proportion to numbers, they would swamp this House? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that it would completely confuse the politics of this country, and that the Colonies themselves want self-government in their own countries and do not desire to share it with us?

Mr. Morrison: Those points coming at this time will. I am sure, be kept in mind by all of us.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Whilst agreeing that the suggestion in the Question is not practicable, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a regime analogous to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. or even formal incorporation in the United Kingdom, might be the most satisfactory solution for the small territories such as the fortress Colonies?

Mr. Davies: This Question merely asks that some kind of committee be set up to investigate the problem, and I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he does not think it a little impolitic to give a bald "No" to a suspended question like this which might be misinterpreted in the Colonies?

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Major Lloyd: asked the Lord President of the Council the rates of wages and the average weekly earnings of those in each trade employed in the buildings and sites of the 1951 Exhibition; and what is the incentive bonus in each case.

Mr. H. Morrison: If we are to get this exhibition open in 1951 those responsible for the preparations must be allowed to get on with the job, and I cannot ask them to undertake the work involved in producing the detailed analysis for which the hon. and gallant Member is asking.

Major Lloyd: While accepting that from the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him if he is aware of the fact that the authorities principally concerned—namely, the contractors and building people—are very anxious indeed, because they feel that unless a greater incentive is given to the workers, this thing will not be done in time?

Mr. Morrison: I am very glad the contractors are anxious—I want them to be. The more anxious they are, the more likely they are to finish the job in time.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is very important that the workers should have an incentive on the lines of that given already elsewhere—£100,000 without Income Tax—on condition that they take no part in building the next Festival of Britain?

Major Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of the individuals concerned who want an incentive, do not agree with his views on incentives which he expressed over the weekend?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Personnel (Parliamentary Candidature)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Defence to what extent, in view of the coming election, it is contemplated that new regulations defining the position of serving officers and men in regard to Parliamentary candidature, are to be issued by any of the three Services.

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the position of Regular members of the Services so far as Parliamentary candidature is concerned.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, make a statement in reply to these Questions after Questions.

Later:

Mr. Alexander: The Government have had under consideration the existing arrangements for members of the Forces who wish to become candidates for Parliament. Under these arrangements serving members of the Forces are allowed, if they wish, to stand for Parliament and to remain on full pay until nomination day when they are released from the Services for the period of the Election. If they are not elected they return to the Services. If they are elected they have at present the choice between remaining in a state of release or continuing to serve as whole-time members of the Forces.
These temporary wartime arrangements are based on the House of Commons (Service in His Majesty's Forces) Act, 1939, which provides that a member of the Forces may sit in the House of Commons notwithstanding the fact that, by reason of being in the Forces, he holds an "office of profit." This 1939 Act was primarily intended to allow Members of Parliament to join the Services during the war without vacating their seats and it was expressly intended to operate for the period of the emergency only.
The Government consider that these wartime arrangements ought to be brought to an end. The House will, I think, agree that party political activities are incompatible, in peacetime, with service in the Forces not only from the point of view of Service discipline and administration but also because of the need to safeguard the political impartiality of the Forces. However, in view of the fact that some few members of the Forces have already committed themselves as prospective Parliamentary candidates, it is felt that no change in the existing arrangements should be made until after the General Election.
As soon as possible thereafter, however, it is intended to revert to the position which obtained for many years before the war under which officers and men serving whole-time in the Forces might not announce themselves as candidates for Parliament until they had retired, resigned or been discharged. At the same time His Majesty will be advised that the Act of 1939, to which I have referred, should be allowed to expire. The effect of this will be that whole-time members of the Forces may contest the General Election and, if they


are not elected, they will be eligible for re-employment in the Forces. If they are elected, however, they will not be given the option of returning to the Forces but will have to retire, resign or be discharged if they wish to serve in Parliament. Any member of the Forces who wishes to become a candidate after the General Election will have to leave the Forces before his candidature is announced.
These new regulations will apply only to whole-time members of the Forces and will not apply to members of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces or to war-time officers and men who have been released under the release scheme with a liability to recall.

Mr. Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House wholeheartedly agree with the proposal to return to the pre-war practice as we think it is undesirable that party political polemics should be brought into the Services? Also we think that the Government have treated with complete fairness the transitional period in which there are still some persons in the Forces who have entered into commitments under the existing procedure?

Mr. Alexander: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Major Legge-Bourke: I would first support what my right hon. Friend has said and then ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give an absolute assurance that the instructions which were given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) and myself last week by the Under-Secretary of State for War are now no longer applicable?

Mr. Alexander: Certainly. The statement I have just made is the last and final statement on this matter.

Mr. Chetwynd: What is the position of National Service men who happen to be over 21 years of age?

Mr. Alexander: They will be discharged for the period required from nomination day onwards, and if they are elected they will be able to sit in the House and will not then be called back to the Forces but the liability to serve thereafter, if they fail to remain Members of the House, will not have passed away. Of course, if they fail to secure election

they will immediately return to their duties in the Forces.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will they have adequate facilities to take part in political activities before nomination day?

Mr. Alexander: They will be treated in the same way as all the other people to whom I have referred.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: While not dissenting in any way from the principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman, would it not be fair to say that it is against a principle of the British Constitution for any Government to try to bind its successors?

Mr. Alexander: There seems to be no need to think of successors when all parties in the House are agreed.

Sir Ian Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that the National Service man, whose period in the Forces is so short, will after the Election be banned in the same way as Regular officers and men on long engagements?

Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir. We are adopting a rule which will after the Election secure the principle of the impartiality in politics of the Armed Forces. I think, therefore, that we must apply that provision to the National Service man as well as to any other members of the Forces.

Professor Savory: Will these Service men be allowed to wear uniform during the election campaign or not?

Mr. Alexander: No, Sir.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the special concessions made for war-time were made at the beginning of an emergency which has not yet been terminated? Can the right hon. Gentleman give some indication that this decision means that that emergency will be ended fairly soon?

Mr. Alexander: I cannot enter into the wider question of the emergency but for this purpose the period of the emergency has now ended.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will issue regulations covering the position after the Election which will be debateable in Parliament before the Dissolution?

Mr. Alexander: Regulations will be issued and any regulations which are laid on the Table of the House are debateable.

Mr. Swingler: Will not my right hon. Friend reconsider future policy in regard to National Service men? Is it not a fact that we now have a new position in respect of National Service in peace-time, and while it is generally agreed that Regular membership of the Forces is incompatible with party politics, is it not wrong that those who are compelled to be in the Armed Forces for a period should be deprived of their rights?

Mr. Alexander: I do not think that they will be deprived of their rights any more than any other citizens.

Mr. William Wells: Can my right hon. Friend say whether pending the Dissolution, members of the Forces in plain clothes will be able to take a normal part in political activities?

Mr. Alexander: That raises a wider question, and I should like to see it on the Order Paper.

North Atlantic Defence Committee (Meeting)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Defence if he has any statement to make on the recent meeting of the Defence Ministers of the signatory Powers of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the Minister of Defence what fresh defence obligations involving further expenditure this country has accepted as a result of the recent meeting of Defence Ministers in connection with the North Atlantic Treaty; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. William Wells: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement on the results of the recent Defence Ministers' Conference in Paris.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: The second meeting of the North Atlantic Defence Committee was held in Paris on Thursday last, 1st December. During the two months since the Committee first met in Washington initial meetings were held in each of the five Regional Planning Groups, and the Standing Group, acting in concert with the accredited represen-

tatives in Washington of the other States concerned, prepared a draft of the overall strategic concept for the integrated defence of the North Atlantic area. The primary purposes of the Paris meeting were, therefore, to conclude the essential task of organisation and formulation of agreed objectives necessary to carry out the defence provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty. These purposes were expeditiously and successfully achieved. No fresh obligations involving further expenditure were accepted by the United Kingdom as a result of the meeting.
Full details were given in a communiqué issued immediately after the meeting, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friends.

Mr. Swingler: May I ask my right hon. Friend, first, what information, if any, will be given to Parliament about the nature of the commitments which are being entered into; and secondly, whether he took the opportunity of this meeting to draw attention to the fact that the United Kingdom is spending a bigger proportion of its national income on defence than any other Powers?

Mr. Alexander: With regard to the first point, of course, it is open to the House at any time to request further information, and we will give all that is possible, subject to the conditions laid down upon the members of the Conference with regard to publication. I ought also to say that I have under preparation a White Paper on the various aspects of the organisation of the North Atlantic Treaty of Defence, and no doubt when that is laid before Parliament the matter of Debate could be raised again. With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, we take every available opportunity, of course, for dealing with such questions as the hon. Member has raised, but I am not at liberty to disclose what was discussed.

Mr. Chamberlain: Was the regional set-up of the organisation considered with a view to the maximum economy?

Mr. Alexander: Certainly, Sir, in relation to the building up of an efficient defence of the whole integrated area.

Brigadier Head: May we expect the White Paper before the end of this Session?

Mr. Alexander: As the end of this Session is so near, I would rather look at that question in detail.

Mr. Scollan: Did the Minister's reply to the original Questions mean that the House could ask for information, which might be laid before it subject to certain commitments; and does that mean that there are certain clauses in the agreements which could not be put before the House?

Mr. Alexander: That was not intended. We shall give full particulars of the organisation as such. What I said was that there are certain matters arising in a general international defence body of this kind engaged in regional defence planning that we might be under obligations not to reveal.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery has been addressing Press conferences and giving broadcasts in the United States of America on the obligations of this country under the Pact; and will the Minister tell us whether Lord Montgomery is correctly explaining the policy of the Government, and is he aware that this means a colossal increase in national expenditure?

Mr. Alexander: I have seen no report of anything said by the Field-Marshal with regard to the particular obligations of this country. Field-Marshal Montgomery was in America on a private trip in connection with the English Speaking Union. If there is anything in particular which has struck the hon. Member as something to which exception could be taken and he will let me have it, I will look into it.

Mr. Gallacher: He has said a lot of stupid things.

Service Families, Hong Kong

Mr. Paget: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement with regard to wives and families joining their husbands in Hong Kong.

Mr. Alexander: There are already some 450 Service families in Hong Kong. My hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that the Colony is in a very congested condition and that for this and other reasons no very considerable increase in this number can be contemplated. In the light of the special conditions in Hong Kong we have until now

felt it wise to confine the provision of passages to families where the serving man was on the strength of the permanent garrison. We have now, however, decided that in future the families of reinforcements will be permitted to proceed to Hong Kong as shipping and accommodation allow. They will thus be on exactly the same footing in this matter as those of the permanent garrison.

Mr. Paget: Is it possible to provide them with some information as to when they will actually go? It is so inconvenient for them when they cannot make any plans.

Mr. Alexander: It is also very difficult for the military authorities to make plans. In these matters the best kind of justice is usually exercised by the commanding officers in such theatres. They keep under review a system which is related not merely to the tour of duty in that particular foreign station but to how long a man's foreign tour has been away from his family. They try to grade the arrangements in order to give as much justice as possible.

Mr. Paget: Will the War Office do the best they can to try to work out when these various ladies will be going and let them know so that they can make arrangements? Can they be told that they will be going within a year or whatever the period may be?

Mr. Alexander: I will certainly ask the Secretaries of State concerned to see that as long notice as possible is given if and when accommodation and shipping are available.

Mr. Gammans: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the phrase "when accommodation is available "? Does it mean that special quarters are to be built? The right hon. Gentleman must realise that Hong Kong is very full already.

Mr. Alexander: That is what I have indicated in my answer. Perhaps the hon. Member will study the answer I first gave.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Meat Ration

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Food if he will now increase the meat ration.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) on 28th November.

Bacon (Coupons)

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the fact that it is undesirable to keep bacon for more than a few weeks, even in cold stores, he will reconsider the position of a person who keeps and kills a pig and who has to forfeit bacon coupons for a year, so as to remove this handicap and give added incentive to pig keeping.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. Anyone who kills a pig which he has been feeding for home consumption is already allowed to keep half of it—about a hundredweight of pig meat—without giving up any bacon coupons, which I consider to be sufficient incentive. The 52 bacon coupons are cancelled only when the whole pig is retained, which means giving up 13 lb. of bacon, on the present weekly ration, in exchange for the second hundredweight of pig meat. Domestic pig keepers can have their pig meat dry cured so that it will keep for six months, or more.

Sir W. Wakefield: In view of that reply, why did the Minister state quite recently that it is undesirable to keep bacon for more than a few weeks, even in cold storage, as obviously, if that is the case, a person who kills a pig is going to be without bacon for a large portion of the year?

Mr. Strachey: The reason is that commercial bacon is cured by a different method—tank cured, instead of dry cured.

Brigadier Head: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that bacon cured in a special way so that it will keep for six months is extremely nasty to eat?

Mr. Strachey: I thoroughly disagree.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) is not correct and that if he goes to farmhouses where they cure bacon, he will find that bacon is kept for 12 months and even longer?

Government Hospitality Centre (House Charges)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food what house charge he has licensed the Government Hospitality Centre in Park Street, London, to levy; and on what grounds he granted the licence.

Mr. Strachey: The house charges are 3s. 6d. for luncheon and 6s. for dinner. The licence was granted to enable guests to obtain service comparable to that provided by establishments of similar standing which have similar house charges.

Mr. Turton: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why private undertakings have been refused such licences because they could not prove their business functioned before the war and that before the war they charged more than 5s. 6d. for a meal? Why is there discrimination in favour of a nationalised undertaking?

Mr. Strachey: No, there is no discrimination; some house charges have been given in one or two similar cases.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whatever house charge he makes, it is entirely fictitious and arbitrary, because in this case the taxpayer pays for the house charge, the revenue, and the deficit?

Mr. Strachey: I do not accept what the noble Lord says.

Mr. Turton: Has the right hon. Gentleman now changed the rules about refusing licences to new applicants who could not prove that they were established before the war?

Mr. Strachey: We have always retained discretion in this matter.

Dairy, Pickering

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food whether he consulted the Milk Marketing Board before he approved the proposal of Messrs. Southwicks Wholesale Dairies Limited to establish a dairy with main depot status at Pickering.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. When consulted, the Milk Marketing Board raised certain objections which were taken into account when we laid down the conditions upon the satisfaction of which our final approval will depend.

Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what those conditions were?

Mr. Strachey: Substantially they are that the cost of moving the milk will not be increased.

Cold Storage, Cardiff Docks

Mr. Price-White: asked the Minister of Food, what is the storage capacity of the Government operated cold storage building at Cardiff Docks; and what tonnages were in store there on the following dates, 1st September, 1st October and 24th November this year.

Mr. Strachey: The storage capacity of the Government cold store at Cardiff Docks is 1,018,400 cubic feet. This represents approximately 7,400 tons capacity at present when meat is the principal commodity stored. The tonnages in store on the nearest Friday to the dates in the Question were: 2nd September, 7,498 tons; 30th September, 7,221 tons; 25th November, 7,164 tons.

Mr. Price-White: In view of the figures the right hon. Gentleman has just given, does he not agree that the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport on 24th November to the effect that these stores were half empty as a deliberate intention of an agreement entered into by Lord Woolton as Minister of Food, is somewhat less than accurate?

Mr. Strachey: At other dates in the course of the last few years this particular store has had very low tonnage in it. For example, on 4th March, 1949, it had 992 tons in it.

Mr. Parkin: While this not unexpected answer to the rather limited Question will give satisfaction to those who are trying to laugh off the evidence of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee last year, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the implications of this Report and the pledge will be borne in mind in framing future legislation?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

Cow Beef

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food what proportion of the supply of home-killed beef is now derived from cows.

Mr. Strachey: About a quarter, over the year.

Mr. Keeling: Could we have the similar figure for the Argentine beef?

Mr. Strachey: Not without notice.

Overseas Food Corporation

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if, having regard to the recent resignations of Mr. J. N. McLean, special adviser to the chairman and Board of the Overseas Food Corporation, and Colonel J. A. Stirling, the Board's regional general manager in the Southern Province of Tanganyika, and in view of the consequent loss of confidence by the staff in the ability of the Board to carry through the recently announced programme of development he will now strengthen the Board accordingly.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government have full confidence in the ability of the Board of the Overseas Food Corporation as reconstituted to shoulder its responsibilities.

Mr. Hurd: Is the Minister taking no notice of these and other resignations of senior men from the groundnut scheme—men who, surely, would not lightly have thrown up good posts—and will he not in any way take the opportunity of having a personal discussion with the senior officers who have thrown in their hands?

Mr. Strachey: If an individual asked to come and see me, I would not refuse to see him, certainly.

Lord John Hope: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many resignations he needs from this Board before sending in his own?

Peanuts

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Food why the permission granted by him on 30th September, 1949, to import peanuts from India on open general licence has been restricted to shipments made by 24th November, in view of the fact that the main Indian crop is not harvested until the beginning of December.

Mr. Strachey: Peanuts, which are imported on Government account, should have been excluded from the item "nuts edible in shell" in the open general


licence to which the hon. Member refers. When this mistake was noticed it was corrected.

Mr. Spence: Could the Minister give an assurance that he has no personal prejudice against peanuts in the shops being provided by private enterprise?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Dockyard Police, Hong Kong

Mr. Gammans: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why European members of the Royal Navy Dockyard Police in Hong Kong with non-European wives are, for the purposes of pay and quarters, counted as single men.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): In the past it has been one of the conditions of employment for Europeans in the Hong Kong Dockyard Police that only men with European wives may occupy official married quarters or receive an allowance in lieu. In connection, however, with a recent review of the emoluments of the Force, the Admiralty have already started inquiries to determine how far this rule is now being enforced and whether it should be relaxed. A reply from the authorities at Hong Kong is awaited.

Mr. Gammans: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this differentiation is repugnant to modern ideas and will he expedite the necessary inquiries being made in regard to it?

Mr. Edwards: Yes, this situation was a legacy left to this Government and we are certainly going into the matter.

Yardcraft Service (Staff Negotiations)

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why it has not been possible for his Department to make any further communication to the Institution of Professional Civil

Servants following on a conference, held as long ago as 23rd July, on the salaries and conditions of certain staffs in the Admiralty Yardcraft Service.

Mr. W. Edwards: The reason for the delay is the necessity to consult other Departments. I hope that these consultations may soon be sufficiently advanced to enable a further communication to be made to the associations concerned.

Sir J. Lucas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that great anxiety is felt by people concerned in this matter and is not the possible reason that His Majesty's Government are not very happy about the result?

Mr. Edwards: That is not the case. Actually one of the main causes for the delay is the fact that the unions and the I.P.C.S. could not come to an agreement as to which is actually to represent the men and that is far more the cause of delay than the negotiations with other Government Departments concerned.

Frigates (Transfer to Egypt)

Mr. Touche: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of frigates, which have recently been or are about to be transferred from the Royal Navy to the Egyptian Government; and what arrangements have been made for payment for these ships by the Egyptian Government.

Mr. W. Edwards: Six frigates have been transferred to Egypt during the last few months and the transfer of a seventh is under negotiation. Payment has been made for three by sterling cheque.

Dr. Segal: Can my hon. Friend say whether these frigates have been transferred unconditionally or has any undertaking been given that they will be used for defence purposes only?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend will have to put that question on the Order Paper.

POLITICAL PROPAGANDA (EXPENDITURE)

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement.
I desire to remove a serious public misconception which has apparently arisen following a Question put to me last Monday. On that occasion in a supplementary question the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Colonel Dower) asked me whether in considering expenditure by commercial and public bodies in connection with electoral propaganda I would also consider "the gift by the Co-operatives of £30,000 for party political propaganda and also such gifts given by trade unions, and indeed money spent by the Central Office of Information on controversial problems." I answered, "I was going to say that as far as the first two cases of expenditure are concerned I have not any particular information about those, but from what has been said, I see no reason to distinguish these payments from other payments, whether public or secret to the political funds of any particular party." That was a correct statement, as I believe, of the existing law.
In a leading article in the "Evening Standard" on 6th December, to some extent repeated in the "Daily Express" today, it was stated that this was "an astounding admission" and it was suggested directly or by implication that my action in the matter of the enforcement of the law relating to election expenditure had been conducted and would continue to be conducted in a partial manner and influenced by political bias. This statement besides constituting, although I hope inadvertently, a grave libel upon the office of Attorney-General, gives publicity to a complete misconception of the law, on a matter of immediate public concern.
So far as the electoral law is concerned, private citizens are entitled to make such donations to political funds as they think proper. This right is enjoyed by them both individually and collectively, thus, subject to the rules of their own constitution and of the general law, corporate organisations such as industrial concerns, the co-operative societies or trade unions, whether of employers or employed, are entitled to make contributions to party

funds whether secretly or publicly, as in the two cases put to me.
The electoral law is, however, concerned with the manner in which those funds may subsequently be spent on propaganda calculated to influence the result of an election. That is a matter to be considered in the light of the effect such propaganda, whatever form it takes, whether films, posters or whatever it may be, is calculated to have when the election occurs.
As to that, before this matter was raised in Parliament, I gave instructions to the Director of Public Prosecutions that should occasion arise he should institute such proceedings as he thought proper without asking for the consent of the Attorney-General. That instruction exists in writing, and I have no doubt, therefore, that the law will continue to be enforced with the same ruthless impartiality as I have sought to enforce it myself.

Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether he has no protection beyond the statement he has just made against what he has described as a gross libel against his office?

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: On a point of Order. As I understood the position, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was giving a personal explanation, as he said in his own words, and on that, of course, I should not desire to ask him anything. As I understand it, he is entitled to make his personal explanation to the House. But in the course of it he did endeavour to give the House guidance on certain matters of law. I should be greatly obliged for your guidance Sir, on whether we can ask him questions on that part of his statement which was not personal but which was in the nature of guidance to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I did not regard the statement as being what we call a personal statement on which a Member cannot be cross-examined. It really was a wide statement with certain implications.

The Attorney-General: So far as my personal position is concerned, I am serenely indifferent to scurrility which generally indicates fear. The newspapers are quite entitled to "have a go" at me politically and on occasion I shall


"have a go" at them in return. But attacks on the office of Attorney-General are an entirely different matter. I have certainly sought to maintain, and indeed I believe I have strengthened—and some of my colleagues might bear me out in this—the independence and impartiality of the office of Attorney-General. I intend to protect the office of Attorney-General against any action, whether on the part of my colleagues, hon. Members opposite, newspapers or whoever it may be, which might threaten the independence and detachment of the office.

Mr. Frank Byers: Might I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that the two statements which he has made tend to make the situation even more confused than it was before? Is it a fact that the law as he has now interpreted it means that expenditure by companies which advocate that certain industries should not be nationalised may be made the responsibility of a political party which has no control over the expenditure so made? It seems to be an amazing situation that, if a party should, advocate a policy in which it believes, and then by accident, other people put up posters, that party should become responsible for expenditure over which it has no control.

The Attorney-General: I agree with the hon. Member that the statements in the newspapers have not added to the clarity of the law upon this position. I am afraid that the question put by the hon. Member was inevitably a rather long one, which it was a little difficult to follow. The principle of our electoral law—I think it arises as a result of interventions in elections long ago by organisations which were either in favour of Free Trade or Tariff Reform—was that third parties who are not actually supporting a particular candidature must, so far as expenditure of money is concerned, keep out of the ring during an election.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman this question because I think it is a point upon which everyone wants to be clear. Are there not two conditions which must be fulfilled before expenditure is such that proceedings may be taken—first, that the election must be started, that one must have come to the stage when some-

one has commenced an election campaign and is appealing for votes; and, secondly, that the expenditure must be directed towards the return of a candidate whether it be by supporting that candidate or by attacking the candidates against him? Are not these the principles which stand firm on the law as it is today and make the expenditure subject to attack in law?

The Attorney-General: That also—I do not complain of it—inevitably was a somewhat long question. So far as the second part of it is concerned, as I understand it, the propaganda concerned need not have reference to any particular candidate. Quite clearly, no particular candidate need be indicated in it. If the propaganda is such as to support the policy to which that candidate adheres, it would be open to a court to say, within the wording of Section 42 of the Representation of the People Act, that it was calculated to promote the return of that candidate or to disparage the other candidate who was opposing the policy supported by that propaganda.
So far as the question as to the date at which expenditure may come within the scope of the Representation of the People Act is concerned, there is, of course, the very highest authority for the view that the date of an election for this purpose, which is not fixed and is a question of fact, is not necessarily after the dissolution of Parliament. I put a hypothetical case. It might, for instance, commence from a defeat of the Government which was thought likely to result in a General Election. There is also high authority for the view that where a particular candidate, by reason of his own political sagacity—I think that I am quoting the words of the opinion—and not because of any outward indications, thinks that an election is imminent, commences to nurse his constituency and to canvass and so on, then so far as he is concerned that is the date of the commencement of the election in regard to expenditure in that constituency. But I must add—and I think that there will be agreement about 'this—that these are questions of fact and degrees to be decided by the court on the facts of each particular case.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: I should like to ask a question which I think is worrying a considerable number of people. In the circumstances which the right hon. and


learned Gentleman has related under which these expenses would be chargeable against a candidate, what would be the effect if the candidate at the beginning of the election, not wishing to incur this possibility, served a notice upon the individual, the party or the body, requesting them not to indulge in propaganda in that constituency, and despite that notice they still went on? [Interruption.] I am asking this for the advantage of hon. Members opposite in view of the promised support of the Communist Party. In those circumstances, would the candidate still be liable?

The Attorney-General: I should say in those circumstances that there would be no liability on the candidate. If the third party was incurring expenditure not authorised by the candidate or his agent on either side and bad been requested to desist from such expenditure, the penalty which might ultimately be imposed upon him in a prosecution for a corrupt offence would be all the heavier.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to get this point clear. Assuming that the election has not started—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made clear the matters of fact that might be taken into account in deciding whether it had started or not—then up to that time is it not the law that there is no objection or legal ground for objecting to people undertaking political expenditure in order to defend those political measures in which they believe?

The Attorney-General: That, of course, is a question of fact as I put it when I originally answered this question on Monday. It falls to be considered in the light of the effect which the expenditure and the propaganda resulting from it have during the election. Perhaps it is dangerous to take hypothetical cases, but if I might take a fairly obvious one of where a political party, perhaps a long time before anybody contemplated an election, either bought up or secured the retainer on hoardings in various constituencies in order to use them during a General Election and then did use them in a General Election, I should have thought that that expenditure would obviously rank as an election expense.
Similarly, if before an election but in intelligent anticipation that it was likely to come very soon, those hoardings were

placarded with posters calculated to influence the result of the election and were left up during it, I should have thought it would be open to a court to say that this was within the Section. Similarly, if some commercial concern printed slogans on packages which it sold and distributed to retailers and those were still in circulation at the time of the election, then, although the expenditure might have been incurred a long time before, the result of it might be considered calculated to affect the election. Then, again, the expenditure, I should have thought, would be of a kind that it would be open to the courts to hold to be within the scope of the Statute.

Mr. John Hynd: In view of the important statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend about anything calculated or regarded as likely to assist or influence voters in favour of a particular candidate, will he tell us what is the position of a newspaper which during a General Election accepts this as one of its primary tasks?

The Attorney-General: Newspapers are specifically exempted from this provision in regard to the restriction of expenditure. Parliament thought it right in the interests of freedom of the Press to permit newspapers to conduct such campaigns as they thought right.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Will the learned Attorney-General agree—and I put it to him with respect—that his exposition of the law in answer to the questions of my right hon. and learned Friend is not in accordance with the distinction drawn in "Rogers on Elections," where, after reviewing cases, the learned editor says that after an election has started, a distinction has still to be drawn between expenditure for the promotion of the election of a candidate and expenditure for the propagation of the general views of that candidate's party? Would he say whether his phrase, used in his original statement, "calculated to influence the result of an election," is drawn from a Statute or whether it is a paraphrase of the statutory references to the conduct of the elections?

The Attorney-General: It is a paraphrase of the existing law. I think the words are "likely to promote," but I am speaking off the book; I think that is the wording of Section 42.
So far as concerns the hon. Member's question in regard to the statement in "Rogers on Elections," I do not want to criticise the learned editor of that book, but that statement was based on a number of events arising at a time when the law was totally different. In the old days, and I hope I am not delivering a lecture on this, the expenditure which was limited was the expenditure in the management and conduct of an election, and third parties, like the Tariff Reform League, the Free Trade Union or any other political party, were entitled to come in and spend as much money as they chose on general political expenditure. The whole object of the more recent legislation has been to prohibit expenditure by third parties, and that has been done by changing the words "management and conduct of elections" to the much wider words which are now used in the Representation of the People Act.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry, but the matter is of great importance, and I must ask the indulgence of the House. I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if what he has just said is correct, because my recollection is that the wording of the Section is:
with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate.
If the matter on which the propaganda is started is something on which the person who is starting the propaganda does not know the views of the candidates, and does not know whether the candidate will support that propaganda or not—just as the party opposite changed their views on a certain matter—how then can the expenditure be directed to
promoting or procuring the election of a candidate"?
It is a real practical difficulty.

The Attorney-General: I do not think so. Those who engage in political propaganda of that kind under the existing law, as I understand it, have a duty to inform themselves of the position. If commercial or industrial concerns wish to defend what they regard as their interests, as, of course, they are quite entitled to do, it should not be impossible for them to present their case in a reasoned way which does not promote the election of one of the contestants in

an election or disparage another. That should not be impossible, but, on the contrary, if they find it is impossible to put forward their case in a way which does not result in the promoting of one candidature or the disparaging of another, there is no reason—and indeed hon. Members opposite would desire that it should be so—why they should not promote or support candidatures to represent their own particular views, so long as the expenditure is properly disclosed in the election expenses.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Quite apart from the commercial and industrial concerns and political parties, to which my right hon. and learned Friend made reference, I am still nervous about a phrase which he used when he said "from the moment a candidate begins to nurse his constituency." Is it not a fact that a good Member of Parliament nurses his or her constituency from the time of being elected?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend will find in the authorities that a distinction is drawn between the case of a sitting Member, who is nursing a constituency and is looking after it throughout his Parliamentary life, and a new candidate who is not the Member. There is a clear distinction between the two cases. Even in the case of a sitting Member there comes a point, which may be before the dissolution of Parliament, when perhaps a canvass is started or special steps are taken with a view to securing votes at an election, and that is a question of fact, and it is for the court to decide whether, in fact, in that constituency and in those circumstances, the election should be regarded as having begun.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Can the Attorney-General say whether the phrase which he has just used in regard to expenditure by a third party, covers contributions, whether by a company or a trade union, to the funds of a political party? If so, are contributions from all outside sources covered, and is it not a fact that the object of such contributions is to advance the propaganda of that political party; and, if that be so, is it not the case, according to the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that contributions by companies or trade unions at the present time will be unauthorised expenditure?

Several Hon. Members: rose —

The Attorney-General: May I just answer that question while it is in my mind? I thought I had dealt with that point. There is nothing whatever to prevent anybody, any hon. Members, any trade unions, any industrial companies, making subscriptions to political funds of any party which they choose. That is perfectly legal; it is legal now, and would be legal even in the middle of an election. That money goes into the bank. So long as it remains in the bank, it does not have the slightest effect on the conduct of the election. When it is taken out of the bank by the political party concerned and devoted to expenditure on propaganda calculated to promote one candidature or disparage another, then it comes within the scope of the statute, but nothing I have said and nothing that the statute says in any way restricts contributions by individuals or corporate bodies to political funds.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: May I ask the right and learned Gentleman whether in order to clarify the position, he would make it perfectly plain that an industry which is at this moment threatened with nationalisation is perfectly entitled to defend itself from its own resources? Is that correct? If it is not correct, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman why prosecutions have not been started? The second question I want to ask him is this. When an election has started is it quite plain that, provided that the industry restricts its propaganda to defending itself against nationalisation, it is perfectly entitled to give its support to that particular cause?

The Attorney-General: Neither proposition has in the least been made plain. I thought the answer which I gave on Monday and which I have repeated today was quite clear in regard to such a proposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If there is any doubt about it, I would advise those who are contemplating expenditure on propaganda which may have the result, and which is intended to have the result, of influencing an election, to obtain an opinion in writing from some competent lawyer about it, and not to rely on views which may be expressed in the excitement of political speeches. Right hon. and hon.

Members opposite, if they have any hope of forming the Administration after the next Election will have the duty of enforcing the law in regard to this matter,' and it is desirable that they should not prejudice their position by rash statements about it now.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am asking what it is.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman may be quite sure that in advising the House or in advising any Member of the House who seeks my advice on the point, I shall be quite definite and completely impartial and unbiased in the matter. I have pointed out that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander on this matter, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, who now has the sole responsibility for enforcing the law, will enforce it. I did say on Monday when I dealt with the matter, that the legality of that expenditure falls to be considered in the light of the effect that expenditure is having during the election. That, I think, answers the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Ian Fraser: In the light of these discussions, is it not clear that there is a real risk that we may go into a General Election within the next few months, that a party of Left or Right may be returned, and that thereafter it may be found on a test case that so many candidates' elections are invalid that the Parliament and the Election itself and its whole purpose may be defeated. [Laughter.] I ask this question quite seriously. Is not the Attorney-General answering at that Box, having prepared a brief on a narrow point with such glibness and such lack of responsibility, and is it not a desirable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have not the slightest intention of withdrawing unless Mr. Speaker orders me to do so. I am not aware that that remark was unparliamentary. Is it not desirable that this matter should be discussed when both sides will have had the opportunity of studying this matter and notice has been provided, or that new legislation should be passed to make the position clear?

The Attorney-General: I do not propose to deal with the hon. Member's observations except to say that I observe that no proposition of law which I have made has been disputed from the Front Bench opposite.

Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that an organisation calling itself "Aims of Industry" is "alleged in the last 12 months to have spent £150,000 on propaganda of the kind which he detailed in a supplementary answer, and that that works out at about £250 per constituency; and can he say whether the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been directed to that matter?

Mr. Austin: rose —

Mr. Speaker: It is now a quarter past four and I do not know whether anybody has very much more to add to what has been said. In view of the important Business to be dealt with today, I appeal to hon. Members not to be too long.

Mr. Austin: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say what is the position in relation to the law of a commercial or industrial undertaking, which normally owns or leases a bill-posting site, making that site available to a particular political party?

The Attorney-General: I do not think it would be wise for me in my present position—and I am bound to say that, in view of the questions, I sometimes wish I were in private practice and advising for a fee—to answer a hypothetical question of the kind just put to me.

Colonel Dower: As the Attorney-General read out the Question I asked him and which he answered in full on Monday, I should like to say that I have not for one moment questioned his ruling in his capacity of Attorney-General. At the same time, I would point out that I asked three questions, and I should like him to note that he did not answer the third one, which was whether he would take into consideration money spent on propaganda by the Central Office of Information.

The Attorney-General: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will draw my attention to any case in which he thinks propaganda of that kind might be calculated to influence an election, I will give it my consideration, and, if I take that view, the hon. and gallant Member can rely upon me to come down on the Ministry concerned. It would not be the first time that I had to make representations, not to that Ministry, but to others.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I do not wish to dispute, but to elucidate, the right hon.

and learned Gentleman's view on the law. I understood him to say that, if a company in self-defence issued propaganda against nationalisation, its expenditure might have to be debited to a candidature that was thereby favoured. What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view in the event of there being more than one party opposed to the nationalisation in question? The second question I wish to put to him is this. In the event of there being expenditure on propaganda in favour of nationalisation, where there was both a Socialist and a Communist candidate in the field, how would that expenditure be divided? Of course, in cases where the Socialist is the only candidate advocating nationalisation, the expenditure would, I suppose, be wholly included in his expenditure.

The Attorney-General: I do not propose to answer questions which are hypothetical except by saying this. I am not sure I follow the second part of the hon. and learned Member's question. So far as the first part is concerned, it might be—and I cannot lay down the law on these matters which are questions of fact—that that kind of expenditure where there are two candidates opposing and one supporting, would come under the head of expenditure intended to disparage a candidate.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: If I am prepared to subsidise a campaign in support of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) is there an opportunity of getting him unseated?

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that that is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Wilson Harris: In view of the fact that elections in university constituencies are likely to begin a few weeks after the assembly of the next Parliament and the constituents in such a case are to be found in every town and village in the country, would such propaganda in expenditure in a remote village be charged against the expenditure of a university candidate?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENT SQUARE (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL

Considered in Committee (Bill amended in the Select Committee).

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1. —(AUTHORISED WORKS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.20 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I do not think it will be necessary to detain the Committee very long in considering the details of this Measure, but certain happenings have taken place since the previous discussions. I do not know whether the Minister of Works can tell us of any development that has taken place in respect of Clause 1, before we pass it.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): Yes, Sir. There was originally in Clause 1 a provision that the London County Council would be authorised to carry out work extending into the carriageway the pavement at the junction of Little George Street and Broad Sanctuary. In talks with the Middlesex County Council on that matter, it was understood that that was not desired by them, and for that reason it has been omitted.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2. —(EXTINGUISHMENT AND CREATION OF RIGHTS OF WAY.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir Harold Webbe: I should like to say a word or two about subsection (5) of this Clause. Since the Bill received its Second Reading, substantial amendments have been made and the scheme has been very considerably altered. I think it will be generally agreed that the new scheme covered by the Bill, as it is now before us, is a great improvement on the old one. Certainly the objections which were raised to the original scheme by the Westminster City Council have, generally speaking, been quite fairly met.
One of the principal improvements which has taken place is that the new scheme provides for the retention of the footways facing the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey, footways which the original scheme proposed to absorb into the garden, access to which would have been denied to the public. I am quite certain that that is a great improvement. On ceremonial occasions in Westminster those two footways represent about the best grandstand, or one of the best grandstands, in London. I am certain it is right that their use should be preserved for the public, and I am convinced that from the point of view of traffic danger it is a great improvement that there should be a footway there instead of the proposed 18-inch kerb.
The definition of the footways which are to be retained is, I think perhaps necessarily, rather vague. In line 11 on page 4 it is stated that the pavement to be provided by the London County Council, and subsequently maintained by the Westminster City Council, shall be round part of that garden. The definition of what part is to be pavement and what part is to be garden is to be determined later. The present plan shows the whole of the pavement stretching from the entrance on the corner at the bottom of Whitehall to the entrance round the corner at the corner opposite the doors of the Abbey, but there is no precise definition of where the pavement is to end and the garden to begin. The Westminster City Council would have liked to have that settled by a signed plan. Instead, subsection (5) provides that it shall be determined by an order to be made by the Minister.
Frankly, after a few years' experience, we are suspicious of any orders made by any Minister on any subject, but I am prepared to accept the position which has been represented to me by the Minister and his officers, that the purpose of this definition is to determine the respective responsibilities of the Minister of Works for the garden and the local authorities for the pathways, and that it is not possible until the scheme has proceeded a considerable way and a considerable amount of constructural work has been done to lay down precisely, as it must be almost to an inch, where the responsibility of the one authority ends and the responsibility of the other begins.


Therefore, I have not put down an Amendment to this Clause.
I understand that the Minister is prepared, as I now invite him to do, to give me two assurances in regard to the order which it is proposed to make. The first assurance for which I ask is that the order will be limited to defining strictly the line at which the responsibility of the local authority ends and the garden for which the Ministry is responsible begins; I wish to be assured that it will do no more than that, and that it will in no way modify the scheme which is now agreed between all the parties, at any rate in such a way as to restrict at all the space which it is now proposed should be left as a public footway over which the public will have a right of way.
The second assurance that I should like the Minister to give me is that in framing the order, which of course cannot be done until the scheme is fairly well advanced, he will consult with the Westminster City Council so that there may be no misunderstanding when the order is made. I am given to understand that the Minister is prepared to give those assurances, and in view of that understanding I have not put down any Amendment.
Perhaps before I conclude I may be allowed to thank the Minister for the readiness with which he has met the objections which have been raised by the City of Westminster and the criticisms which have been made in this House, and through him also to thank the architect of the scheme and the officers of his Department for the trouble they have taken and the help they have given in bringing about agreement on what I am sure the whole Committee will regard as one of the most important improvement schemes which has been before Parliament for a considerable time.

Mr. Key: I should like to thank the hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) for his remarks about myself, the architect and my officers. I have always found that negotiation with local authorities is the best way to settle any difficulties which there may be.
The subsection to which the hon. Gentleman referred deals only with the specific point of defining the extent of the

pavement that has to be provided by the London County Council, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be nothing in the order that will go outside that limit. Secondly, it was our intention in framing this subsection that when we came to make the order we should first consult the local authority which will be responsible for the maintenance, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall definitely do that.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I support the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe). We have been very satisfied with the improvements proposed by the Minister. But before we leave this Clause, I should like to press the right hon. Gentleman to give some indication of where these pavements will be, if he can do so. The geographical situation of the pavements compared with the original 18-inch kerb is not clear, at any rate to my mind.

Mr. Key: They will be in the position of the pavements which are now on the south and the east part of the island, and, according to the plans that have been drawn, they will be 12-feet wide in place of the 18-inches mentioned in the Bill. They will face the Houses of Parliament and also face St. Margaret's and Westminster Abbey.

Mr. R. A. Butler: And on the other side?

Mr. Key: Not on the other side, because the pavements for the other side will be inside and not outside the garden. That has been arranged in the plan and has been held to be adequate for the purpose.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Schedule. —(PROVISIONS FOR PROTECTION OF STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. R. A. Butler: I understand that there have been one or more alterations in the Schedule, and I wonder whether we could be told about them by the Minister.

Mr. Key: The period of protection for the British Transport Commission, which is mentioned in Part I of the Schedule, has been extended from one year to two years. The other provision is in Part III, and it is designed to give protection by arbitration, so far as existing rights are concerned, not merely to the Commission but to the other undertakers as well.

Question put, and agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

4.32 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I think it is satisfactory to be able to state on Third Reading that this Bill has been materially improved. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) said, we are considering a site which may be regarded as the centre of the whole Commonwealth and a site which must be treated with the utmost care and attention. I think it is satisfactory to reflect that in considering this site we have not only considered its beauty but have also made further provision than previously existed for crowds to assemble on suitable occasions and to see ceremonies which take place.
On behalf of the public, I should like to thank the Minister for the consideration of their comfort, which has obviously been his main concern. I should like also to ask two questions. First, about the statues, can he give those of us who are lovers of statues—which is a very rare category—some assurance about where the statues of these distinguished statesmen are to be found in the future? I think that information would be valuable. Some of us have vague ideas about it, but we should like our ideas to be more precise. I have a particular passion for Sir Robert Peel and I should like to know whereabouts I shall find him in the future. I also understand that Canning is to be in the company of Abraham Lincoln. I should like to know how closely these two great men will be able to confer together in the layout as suggested finally under the Bill.
Secondly, what is to be the position of the garden? I must say that I was very disturbed, on reading the observations

made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division, about the alleged lack of symmetry in the garden. Is the Minister now satisfied that this garden can, in fact, be gardened by gardeners, and that it is not entirely in the hands of those who believe in symmetry and mathematics? Is he satisfied that things will grow in this garden in a beautiful and satisfactory way, that it will be a scene of rest and beauty, and that it will not be satisfactory merely to those who consider that a garden should be planned in the same direction as that in which the traffic goes round? If the right hon. Gentleman can give some satisfaction on those points, I feel that the Third Reading of this Bill will be a memorable occasion.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Key: So far as the statues are concerned, two of them will be put into what will remain of the Canning enclosure and the other four will be adequately posted along the western side of the island. I am afraid that at the moment I have not in my mind the knowledge of who will be neighbour to whom, but at any rate I think they will be sufficiently separated not to fall out one with the other. So far as the garden is concerned, I think that the point which the hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) raised on Second Reading has been met, and there is a definite symmetry in the layout of the garden. The trouble was caused, I think, by a mistaken idea of trying to extend part of the gardens round the trees. The purpose suggested by the hon. Member was not the intention of the people who planned them. I am certain that this improvement will mean that it will be a far more attractive square than it is at present, and I am certain that the gardens will be a credit not only to my own Department, but a joy to all those who visit them.

4.36 p.m.

Sir H. Webbe: Perhaps as I made such very rude remarks about the gardens on Second Reading, I may be allowed to say that I think the position is now very much better. To a great extent the restless features have been subdued. The provision of another way into the square has given point to the paved pathway round the two sides, which in the original plan led nowhere except to the same way


back. It now leads out of the square and it has given meaning to the whole design, which represents a great improvement on the original.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

INDIA (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as to the operation of the law in relation to India, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund or of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in sums payable thereout which is attributable to any Order in Council under the said Act for modifying law to which the said Act extends.

Resolution agreed to.

INDIA (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Clause 1. —(OPERATION OF EXISTING LAW IN RELATION TO INDIA IN VIEW OF INDIA'S BECOMING A REPUBLIC.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.38 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: As this Clause is the only substantial Clause in the Bill, I want to raise certain points on it. When he introduced the Bill, the Minister gave an assurance about the type of Order in Council which he would introduce. He said, for example, that he would not use the Order in Council method for matters which involved vital alteration of the law, and as there may be, as I warned the House in the Second Reading Debate, various points in the law which may need altering in a very important manner, I should like the right hon. Gentleman, if possible, to give us a further assurance on this matter. I should also like him to give us an illustration of the type of alteration of the law which might follow but which would, of course, normally depend upon the Indian legislature itself altering its own law.

That would particularly be the case in the matter of citizenship.
Apart from that, the only other matter I want to raise on this Clause is on the Orders in Council. Under subsection 3 (b) we read that
An Order in Council under this Section … shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament.
Could the right hon. Gentleman give a little further indication of the type of Order in Council he has in mind and how Members of the House can take action upon it—whether by affirmative or negative Resolution?

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): This Bill makes provision only for annulment by a negative Resolution of either House of any Order which may be presented under this Bill. I do not know that I can add very much to what I said in the Second Reading Debate about the nature of the Orders which we shall bring forward. As an illustration of the kind of subject on which we should not bring forward an Order in Council I gave any change in the law of citizenship under the British Nationality Act, 1948, which might result from new Indian legislation. That is the only subject which I have considered because it is the only one on which I think there is at present a foreseeable probability that the Indian Legislature will introduce legislation themselves, which will require a substantial or important Amendment of our law here.
We adopted this method of the negative resolution partly because it had been introduced into similar Acts which were passed by Parliament in 1947 and 1948, and partly because the object we had in view was really quite different from that which was envisaged when, in the Government of India Act, 1935, provision for affirmative resolution was made. It was then anticipated that changes might be made, for example, in the provinces—in the constitution of new provinces, the alteration of the size or boundaries of provinces; and that they might be made by Orders in Council. That was obviously a matter of major importance, and it seemed to Parliament then—and I still think it was right—it seemed to Parliament then that it was only right that such orders should be subject to affirmative resolution.
However, we do not mean to do anything like that here. We think a considerable number of small matters—almost matters of detail—may arise, in which the House would not desire to be troubled with new legislation, and that they can be done by an Order in Council; but if any objection is taken, then, of course, the Order can be annulled. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. R. A. Butler: May I then take it, as the right hon. Gentleman's speech on Second Reading of this Bill indicates, and as he said, that the reason that there is no affirmative Resolution is that it is not expected that this particular procedure will be used for any major matter?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes. I give that pledge without hesitation.

Mr. Butler: In that case we have no reason to be dissatisfied with the manner in which this is drafted.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I wish only to say that we have been extremely gratified by the reception which this Bill has had, and that I think it will have a most beneficial effect that the Bill has had the unanimous support of the House.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I should like to say from this side of the House that we have had no hesitation in giving this Bill our support. I do not think I need add on this occasion to the observations we made on Second Reading.

Mr. Viant: I hope I shall be pardoned for intervening at this juncture, but I have sat in the House quite a number of years now and witnessed many occasions when the interests of India have been discussed, and I am delighted to be here tonight to offer my congratulations to the people of India

and to the Government who have brought this matter to such a satisfactory end. All we can hope now is that India may be blessed with the statesmen who are necessary to bring this Measure successfully to fruition, and the Indian nation to a successful future.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 6th December.]

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Clause 10. —(AREA OF COMMISSION.)

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: I beg to move, in page 7, line 31, at the end, to insert:
Provided that two or more boroughs in the same county, each of which had at the aforesaid date a population of fifty thousand or over may join together in one group for the purposes of being included in a single commission of the peace.
This is a matter which, I am instructed, has been brought to the Home Secretary's notice by or on behalf of the Stratford bench. It is a specialised case which, I think, requires careful consideration. I gave notice on Second Reading that I should be referring to this matter. I think that the problem which arises is peculiar almost to the situation which occurs in south-east Essex.
In that area there is the Becontree petty sessional division, and it includes a number of boroughs of substantial population. They are Dagenham, Ilford, Leyton, Wanstead, Woodford, and Walthamstow. In those six areas there are populations ranging from '60,000 in the case of Wanstead and Woodford to 183,000 in the case of the Ilford area, and so in the Becontree division, where they are dealt with as one unit, there is a total population of 700,000—indeed, nearly 750,000—all of which at the moment is entirely dealt with by the Stratford bench in the Becontree petty sessional division.
The problem which has been put with regard to these is that, as the Bill stands at the moment, each of those boroughs will be entitled to a separate commission


of the peace. This is rather the reverse of the problem which we have met with in the other cases, in which boroughs threatened with the loss of their separate commissions of the peace have been struggling with the Government to retain them. In this case, I am told, all the local people involved in the administration of justice there desire, not that there should be six or seven different commissions of the peace all operating in this crowded area, but that it should be possible for those boroughs all to be united together in one commission of the peace.
As I understand it, at the moment there is no power under the Bill for commissions of the peace to be joined together in that way, and I have moved the Amendment with a view to endeavouring to secure such a combination. The Amendment speaks of "two or more boroughs." Actually, I had in mind all six boroughs, to be united into one petty sessional area to operate as one unit. I should like to reinforce the argument for that case with this information. I am told that the population in the Becontree petty sessional division area at the moment is approximately half of the population of the whole County of Essex. I take it that there is a population of between one million and 1,500,000 in the county, and half of that population is centred in this crowded area round about Dagenham and Ilford.
As matters stand there will be ultimately, of course, a magistrates' courts committee of 20 members for the county, but only one representative for this area against 19 for the other parts of the county. As the thing works at the moment a perfectly satisfactory arrangement has operated for a considerable time. It is economical, and it provides rapid and proficient justice in that area. If this proviso is not accepted, the result will be that this single unit as it is at the moment will be split into six or seven units. There is not even court accommodation, for one thing. If the proviso is not accepted it will mean separate commissions, operating in each of these six or seven boroughs, and six or seven courts; whereas at the moment there is a perfectly satisfactory arrangement operating centrally with one court.
The illustration that was put to me of what would happen if this proviso, or

something like it, were not accepted, was that the situation there would be equivalent to having the court of Birmingham administered by the County of Warwick. The illustration is intended to convey the idea of a crowded urban area like that being operated from an entirely rural area whose interests are far removed from that crowded centre.
The problem is one which has been brought to the notice of the Home Office, and this is something which is strongly desired locally. As far as I know, there is no opposition. I see the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) is here. I do not know whether he has any information to the contrary from the local people. I want to make it plain that my information comes from those interested in the administration of justice; I have no information about the reaction of the local people to my suggestion. Nevertheless, it does seem to me to be a proper suggestion to keep this Becontree unit working, as it does at the moment, in a satisfactory manner. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept this Amendment, or something equivalent which would cover the point.

Mr. Parker: I do not wish to object in any way to this Amendment, which seems to me to be a very sensible one, but I do want to object to the proposal made by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) that the Becontree petty sessional area should be retained as one unit. It is much too large for the satisfactory administration of justice in that district of Essex, and there is a strong demand that it should be broken up. I do not say it should necessarily be broken up into units, each consisting of an individual borough. While I think there is a lot to be said for the suggestion that it might be made possible for two boroughs to be combined for legal purposes, I do not wish to support the suggestion that the whole area should remain as one legal unit. My own constituency, the borough of Dagenham, now has a population of 113,000, and there is a very strong demand that it should become a separate legal unit, without prejudice, of course, to the fact that some of the surrounding boroughs may prefer to associate themselves together.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member will appreciate that my Amendment does not


compel them to unite if they do not want to do so. It is merely permissive; it enables them to do so if they find it convenient.

Mr. Parker: I am not opposing the Amendment; I think it is a sensible one; but I do oppose the suggestion that the whole of the Becontree petty sessional area should remain as one legal unit. We in Dagenham would like to have our own commission of the peace. Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) entitles us, having a population of more than 75,000, to make application to be a separate legal unit, and it is highly likely that when this Bill becomes an Act the Dagenham Council will make such an application. I only wish to make it quite clear to the Government that Dagenham does not necessarily wish to remain part of the Becontree petty sessional area, although I personally have no objection whatever to this Amendment; in fact, I should be prepared to support it.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): This Clause does not compel the break-up of the Stratford petty sessional area. I think the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) may not have been in touch, as it were, with both sides to this controversy. Undoubtedly there is a very strong feeling, but I think that on the Stratford bench, at any rate, a fair number of the magistrates would like to remain as they are. I suppose the instinctive conservatism of most people in office causes them to think it is a good thing that they should be there and to tremble to think of what would happen if anybody took their place. There is undoubtedly strong feeling about it.
Dagenham has been mentioned, and I have heard that at any rate some part of public opinion in the other areas takes the same" view; they think that this is too highly centralised. I do not want it to be thought that I am taking sides one way or the other; this must obviously be a matter for consideration when all the arguments on both sides have been heard; but my own view is that this is precisely the kind of matter which should be dealt with by the magistrates' courts committee, because they will have the opportunity of receiving representations, and I should not imagine that they would desire necessarily to break up a unit that is working

well, provided that it is sufficiently localised in this very populous area to give everybody reasonable access to the courts.
My own view is that this Amendment is not required for the purpose. If the magistrates' courts committee think that it is desirable to divide Stratford in some way or other they will do so. If they do not, the situation will remain as it is. I think it is entirely a matter for the locality to deal with, and is not a matter for this Committee to interfere with.

Mr. Marlowe: The proposal I have made is only permissive. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that without some such Amendment it would be possible for them to combine in the way I have suggested? That is the first point about which I wish to be satisfied. The second is this. The Home Secretary will appreciate that under Clause 16 each of these will get a separate magistrates' court committee. I have put down a consequential Amendment to that Clause which it might be convenient to consider now, because it is not proposed that there should be a separate discussion on it.
I had in mind that they should first of all be allowed to unite into one commission of the peace, and having done that to have one magistrates' court committee. That would be suitable machinery for arriving at just the position the Home Secretary has in mind. I have the feeling—and so, I think, have those who are concerned about this matter locally—that if there are half-a-dozen commissions of the peace, and incidentally half-a-dozen magistrates' courts committees, there is unlikely to be the agreement which I think is required to solve this problem. On the other hand, I think we are more likely to get that agreement if there is one magistrates' courts committee. However, if the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the present unified control can be operated under the Bill as it stands without any Amendment, then I and those interested in this matter would be entirely satisfied.

Mr. Charles Williams: I have listened carefully to this argument, and while I am not interested in the case of Dagenham, I think that from a wider point of view there is something in this Amendment, which would make it possible for amalgamation to take place if


necessary. I wanted rather to emphasise that under the Bill it is possible for two, three, or more places to amalgamate for their common convenience.

Mr. Ede: I think that can generally be done through the magistrates' courts committee. This Amendment would, I think, require some examination, because I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) will agree that, generally speaking, it would be desirable that the two boroughs should be contiguous to one another.

Mr. Marlowe: Oh, yes.

Mr. Ede: As the Amendment is drafted, it might be possible for, say, Torquay and Barnstaple—if Barnstaple had a sufficient population—to form a common committee of this kind, and I am quite sure that that is not what is desired. Seeing the hon. and learned Gentleman's name down to this Amendment, I thought he was trying to make some arrangement for Hove—

Mr. Marlowe: No.

Mr. Ede: —and I have been looking round Sussex to see what bride he was trying to find for that particularly vigorous bridegroom, but I have failed in that. I recognise that there is a difficulty to be met here, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will arrange to see me about this between now and the Report stage, I will see whether there is something we can do to meet the narrower point. I am sure he now agrees that any arrangement of this sort must be for contiguous boroughs. On that understanding, I hope he will consent to withdraw his Amendment so that we can get on.

Mr. C. Williams: In view of something the right hon. Gentleman said, I must add this, which might save a lot of trouble. I assure him that there is no intention on the part of Torquay to amalgamate with Barnstaple, or vice versa. If I left that unsaid after the Home Secretary's intervention following my earlier remarks about amalgamation, there might be trouble. The Home Secretary is sometimes rather adept at making trouble in this respect, so I felt I must at once protest that there is no intention of that sort.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in his suspicion as to my motives with regard to Hove in this matter, but that comes later. I agree with what he said about the contiguous boroughs. I had the same point in mind, but I found it almost impossible to draft it in appropriate form. I am much obliged for what he has said, and in those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Marlowe: I beg to move, in page 7, line 40, to leave out "seventy-five," and to insert "fifty."
I should satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that there is in this particular case again no local interest. I merely thought it would be more logical that the figure which appears for existing boroughs of 50,000 should also apply to future ones. Since putting down the Amendment, the circumstances are altered by the fact that 50,000 has been reduced to 35,000, and if the principle is accepted, I would ask that my Amendment of 50,000 should be treated as 35,000.
I do not find it easy to understand that if a figure is accepted as a reasonable size for a borough to retain its commission of the peace, whether it is 50,000 or 35,000, why an entirely different figure is chosen for the future. If we fix the standard of a borough at 35,000, as we have done, as the appropriate size for the borough to have its separate commission, then why limit it to those already in existence? This subsection contemplates the future days when growing boroughs expand to the size where they should have a commission of their own. If it is accepted that 35,000 is the adult stage at which they are entitled to a commission, I am unable to understand the differentiation between those of the past and those of the future. The general principle of this Bill has been to try to arrive at a logical basis for the commissions of the peace, and it seems to me to be more logical that they should be the same. I have, therefore, put down this Amendment, which I hope will be accepted, to arrive at uniformity, or, if not, that we may have some explanation of the differentiation.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I am terrified at the hon.


and learned Gentleman's passion for uniformity. I am always a little shy of proposals which are designed to secure uniformity for uniformity's own sake. We have adopted the figure of 75,000 in the Clause for future commissions of the peace because that is the minimum figure under the scheme of the Bill as it now is for the possession of a separate commission plus a separate magistrates' courts committee.
We thought it would be undesirable to give new separate commissions of the peace to new boroughs which would not be independent and have their own committees but which would have to work in with the county magistrates' committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that 75,000 was the figure suggested for that by the Royal Commission, and the fact that we have reduced the figure for separate commission from 50,000 to 35,000 makes it all the more difficult to understand his proposal. We think that the right course now is to give commissions to those boroughs which when they reach that size would be independent boroughs with their own magistrates' courts committees and not have to work in with the other county districts.

Mr. Marlowe: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a reduction of 15,000 should apply to this subsection and that at least the 75,000 ought to be reduced to 60,000? Will he consider that point? There seems to be a logical case that the two should bear the same relation as they did before.

Mr. Collins: Will the Attorney-General also deal with the question which, if this Amendment is refused, is going, in due course, to lead to a fresh crop of anomalies; where we shall have a number of non-county boroughs with populations considerably in excess of 35,000 as they expand which will not have a commission of the peace, whereas those which have been protected by this new arbitrary line will continue. Although the case for uniformity may not be desirable, we shall have a whole crop of new anomalies even less desirable.

The Attorney-General: That will, of course, happen and was one of the main reasons why we agreed on both sides of the Committee to reduce the figure from 50.000 to 35,000. It was felt that

in those boroughs which had existing commissions of the peace there was a real tradition in the administration of justice, and the existence of the commission helped to form that esprit de corps which is so desirable in local authority areas; and to take the commission away from boroughs that had already got it would be a serious affront to them and tend to diminish the tradition and corporate sense that those boroughs had.
That was a very strong case, and it impressed itself upon us on both sides of the Committee. I think that was the principal reason that we made the concession and agreed to the figure of 35,000; but that consideration does not apply at all to the new borough which has never had a commission of the peace. We certainly think—and I am afraid that we would adhere to this view—that it would be most undesirable to multiply the number of separate commissions. Once a borough has reached the status of 75,000, it is perhaps a different matter. Then it is a very large and self-contained area which justifies the appointment of its own magistrates' courts committee which could certainly afford to have at least one whole-time clerk and which is—I can only think of the horrible phrase which is used now—viable for this purpose on its own.
I feel that it would be wholly inconsistent after all the study which has taken place on this problem and on the recommendations made by the committees and the Royal Commission to multiply the establishment of new commissions for comparatively new areas. I will consider the point put by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe), but I do not hold out much hope that we can make a concession on it. I think that the two things are not really closely related, and because we made a concession on the 50,000, I do not think it is quite reasonable of him to expect us to make a concession on a figure which really relates to another problem and which is based virtually on the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

Mr. Marlowe: I have down another Amendment dealing with the magistrates' court committee on the same basis. I should be satisfied with a magistrates' court committee for 60,000, which seems to me to be a reasonable figure. I entirely


agree with the basis of arriving at some figure such as the Attorney-General has suggested—and it may be that the 50,000 I have suggested is too low. I would ask him to keep open the question of bringing the disparity, as it were, between the present and the future into line, and as the difference as suggested in the Bill was 25,000 originally—50,000 for the old boroughs and 75,000 for the new—I ask him to keep that proportion and now that the figure for the old borough has been reduced to 35,000 to allow 60,000 to be the figure both for the new borough and the magistrates' court committee. I urge upon him that that is a perfectly reasonable figure for a magistrates' court committee.

Mr. C. Williams: I agree with the Attorney-General that there is a very big difference when it comes to taking away a commission of the peace from a borough. I should be the last person to wish to break the continuity of history. I am not one of those who believe in a perpetual past, like the Attorney-General. I am all for progress, and so is my party. In the progressive boroughs which are developing, we should give every encouragement to help them to build up their traditions by granting them their own courts. My hon. and learned Friend's Amendment refers to a figure of 50,000, but surely the original figure was 75,000, which last night we reduced from 50,000 to 35,000? The Attorney-General is doing what he so often does, putting a great barrage in the way of progress. I am glad he has intimated that he will look into this matter again, although I have very little hope that he will do anything progressive, now or at any other time.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 7, line 42, at the end. to insert:
Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to a borough in which, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, it is desirable for geographical or historical reasons or to secure the better administration of justice that a separate commission of the peace or a Court of Quarter Sessions should be retained.
In moving this Amendment, there is no need for me to indulge in anything in the nature of special pleading. I am not a recorder, and there is no commission of the peace in my constituency to be

abolished in consequence of what this Bill contains, either in its original form or in its amended form. There is no recordership in my constituency which will be extinguished under this Measure. But, listening to the Debate we had yesterday on Clause 10, I am not satisfied that by drawing this arbitrary line, based upon the population in June, 1948, we shall not in some cases impede the efficient administration of justice, and in some instances cause additional expense to be incurred and considerable inconvenience to jurors.
I am not satisfied, even though some boroughs have now been given a new lease of life as far as commissions of the peace are concerned, that this will not be the result in some instances. Yesterday, the Attorney-General refrained from picking out the resemblance between the Home Secretary and the late Lord Strafford. I am sorry the Home Secretary is not here, but today he appears to be emulating the Red Queen by saying "Off with their heads" to so many recorders. Are we sure it is wise to draw this hard and fast line without any possibility of departure from it?
This Amendment seeks to give the Lord Chancellor a discretion to depart from that hard and fast line where cases for departure really exist. I am inclined to agree that as a general rule recorderships should go where the population is under 20,000. I do not think that to be a bad general rule. But the Attorney-General himself recognised in his speech last night that some of these recorder-ships, where the population is below that level, serve a useful purpose. He said:
I very deeply regret that some of these old recorderships are to go. As one who has been a recorder, I regard them with great favour. They are not only useful as judicial tribunals in areas where they are trying a reasonable number of cases, but even in those towns in which they are not doing much judicial work they are a link with the historic past and to some extent the centre of that local tradition and esprit de corps which I referred to in connection with commissions of the peace, and to which it is quite right to attach great importance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 1837–8.]
Some of these he has said are useful tribunals, but as the Bill now stands their existence will be terminated.
5.15 p.m.
This Amendment seeks to give the Lord Chancellor power to retain these


useful tribunals in existence, while letting the wholly useless ones disappear. It may be that the Attorney-General will say, as it is sometimes said, that the Amendment is badly drafted. I shall not be too keen to resist criticism on the drafting, but this is an Amendment designed to try and state principles which should be applied in determining whether a recordership or, indeed, a separate commission should be retained when the population is below the ceiling specified in Clause 10.
What are the arguments in favour of retaining a recordership in spite of a low population figure in a borough? It is really of great importance that local inhabitants should have an opportunity of seeing British justice in operation, not only in the magistrates' court, but also in a local court of quarter sessions where the more serious cases are tried. I attach great importance to that. I believe that the trial of serious cases in a town that is not an assize town, which may have a small population, is in itself a considerable deterrent to the commission of crime. I should have thought that in these days when crime is increasing we cannot dispense with any deterrent that exists. I would put in the forefront of my argument for the retention, in some cases, of recorderships in towns below that level the desirability of having justice administered locally in the more serious cases.
There is yet another argument—the inconvenience to the jurors resulting from the abolition of courts of quarter sessions in a small borough. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) is present, but Stamford lies just at the north-east end of Northamptonshire. I think I am right in saying that the borough of Stamford is in three counties, Rutland, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire. At the present time jurors of Stamford go to the court in Stamford, but when the recordership is abolished the jurors who live in that segment in Northamptonshire will now have to travel to the quarter sessions at Northampton. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks it is an easy journey to make on British Railways he will find that it takes the greater part of a day to travel from Stamford to Northampton by rail.

The Attorney-General: I should have to take one of British Railways' new cross-country buses.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman would find it almost equally difficult.
What about the other segment of Stamford? Jurors from one segment would go to Oakham and jurors In another segment would go off to Lincoln. It is not a very easy journey to Lincoln from Stamford, either. These are the sort of places where geographical considerations are of considerable importance, irrespective of the total population of the borough. Banbury was referred to in the Debate yesterday. It is an important city and has one merit, among others, in that it adjoins my constituency. I am sure it is a great convenience to the jurors of Banbury that they should not have to travel to the quarter sessions held at Oxford. It is a convenience so far as the total cost is concerned, and inasmuch as cases can be committed so close to the borders of Northamptonshire. Quite apart from the inconvenience to jurors there is the additional expense of transporting witnesses. There is another reason for the retention of these Recorderships. They form a useful training ground for the performance by barristers of judicial duties.
There is another factor which has been ignored in the Bill. A line is drawn from the population figure in June, 1948, as returned by the Registrar-General. That figure does not take account of the population in military camps and such like, which may be very close to the borough. For instance, I suggest it is a convenience to retain a court of quarter sessions in Richmond, Yorkshire, for the purpose of dealing with the more serious cases which arise, unfortunately, from the military camp at Catterick. That seems to be a factor which has not been taken into account in fixing this arbitrary population ceiling, and it is one which would be taken into account if this Amendment were adopted.
The Attorney-General will no doubt seek to attach great importance to the number of cases that have been tried by the recorders of the towns I have mentioned during the last two years. I do not think that that is a


proper criterion to attach; I do not think too much importance should be attached to that, for this reason: as he himself has said, the amount of work done at a particular quarter sessions often and chiefly depends on the date fixed for the holding of that quarter sessions. What is really wanted is not the wholesale abolition of recorderships but greater co-ordination throughout the country.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke yesterday of the difficulty of telling recorders that they must hold their sessions on particular dates. I entirely agree, but I see no reason why the Lord Chancellor, when an application comes before him under this Amendment for the retention of the recordership, if it is carried into the Bill, should not say, "If you fix the dates of your sessions within a particular fortnight of each quarter I think the retention of your court will be a convenience in the administration of justice." I do not see that it is necessary for the Lord Chancellor or the Home Secretary to specify dates with any greater precision. If the Amendment were carried I think the Lord Chancellor would be able, formally perhaps, to prescribe some condition of that sort so that in that way we could have, throughout the country, courts sitting at different intervals, a more speedy administration of justice and cheaper administration than will be the case if all these Recorderships are abolished.
I should like to draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to another part of the Midlands circuit—Warwick, Coventry and Birmingham. Birmingham has a heavy list at quarter sessions, Coventry has a substantial list and Warwick, which is close by, has tried few cases at the city sessions during the last few years. But I cannot help thinking that if the dates of the Warwick sessions were slightly altered we would find that Birmingham would be relieved to some extent, and also Coventry, of the burdens now cast upon them. It would be an advantage to retain the quarter sessions at Warwick for that reason.

Mr. Cecil Poole: And Lichfield.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I know Lichfield only from the pleasure of passing through it; I have never been in it. Like the hon. Member, my acquaintance with it is purely temporary.

Mr. Poole: rose —

The Deputy-Chairman: This has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I apologise for being led from Birmingham to Lichfield. I was using Birmingham as an illustration, and I was led off to the Oxford circuit.
I hope I have made out a strong case for the retention of some of these recorderships where the limit of population is below 20,000. I do not think that the Attorney-General made out a case for wholesale abolition last night. He talked about the difficulty of jurists in the case of a recordership being retained with a population of under 20,000. But if a recordership and a court of quarter sessions were retained in such boroughs jurors would be drawn from within the limits of those boroughs and not, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, from the country as a whole. I have explained the object of the Amendment—the geographical point of view, the securing of the better administration of justice, and the desirability of retaining these recorderships for historical reasons. The Amendment does not compel the Lord Chancellor to retain one recordership where the population is under 20,000, but it gives him power to do so where that retention is desirable for the better administration of justice.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I hope the Government will consider a long time before accepting this Amendment. Under it the Lord Chancellor will be given the power to reject the whole object of this part of the Bill. If he can retain a recordership for historical reasons, does not that give him power to retain just those very courts which it is the object of this Bill to do away with, courts where there really is not any substantial business and where the holding of the court is more a social occasion than for the administration of justice? It would defeat the whole object of the Bill if the Lord Chancellor were given power to retain a court merely on historical grounds.
The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) mentioned various courts, among them the court at Richmond in Yorkshire. I can remember an occasion when the whole paraphernalia of justice was brought out, The small courthouse was full of the public, jurors, police and justices coming to listen to the administration of justice. There was one case which was a plea of guilty, and after the short proceedings in the court a good time was had by all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Why not indeed, but excellent though it is, do not let us have it under the heading of administration of justice. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is allowed to get away with this Amendment, there will be maintained in existence all the fusty traps which the Bill sets out to abolish.

Mr. Collins: On some occasions in courts which are usually quite busy there are no cases at all. Would my hon. Friend suggest that that is a good reason for closing those courts down?

Mr. Mallalieu: Of course not, but my hon. Friend indirectly has given the reason why they should be maintained. He said that such courts on some occasions had no business. The court I mentioned has generally but one or two prisoners at the outside, and all this expense and elaborate paraphernalia is brought into existence in order to give the appearance of the administration of justice, though generally it fails in providing that impression and gives the contrary appearance of a social gathering. I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. One could imagine a Lord Chancellor of a certain political complexion wishing to keep these courts in existence because they give a certain sort of patronage traditionally associated with a certain political party. I hope the Government will not have any sympathy with an Amendment which would permit the existence of things which are against the intentions of the Bill.

Brigadier Thorp: The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), did not make out a very good case even though he spoke in a sneering manner. He may not like the historical traditions of this country and obviously he does not appreciate the whole point of the Amendment moved by

my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), which is that the Lord Chancellor should have the power to consider any points that were put forward—on historical grounds, for convenience sake, in the interests of the administration of justice, to save public expense and because of geographical situations. The Lord Chancellor in those circumstances would not necessarily decide to keep on a recordership for purely historical reasons.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: One of the reasons in the Amendment is "for historical reasons." Could the Lord Chancellor not act solely on such reasons?

Brigadier Thorp: The words may be so, but as my hon. and learned Friend explained, we are prepared to accept any alterations in the wording of the Amendment. That clears up that point.
I want to put a particular case. I am not going to talk very long about the history of Berwick-upon-Tweed, because the Home Secretary, who I see in his place, has a very great knowledge of that history. He told me all about it once before upstairs in Committee. Like so many other non-county boroughs, Berwick-upon-Tweed got its charter a long time ago from James I, but that replaced an earlier charter issued by Robert the Bruce. That granted various rights to Berwick-upon-Tweed, and there is one point which many feel about Berwick-upon-Tweed—if it had not been for that place on many occasions today we should be sitting in a Scottish House of Commons having an occasional English day, which I do not think many hon. Members in this country would like.
Another point about Berwick-upon-Tweed is that unlike certain other non-county boroughs, it is rather exceptional. Under an Act of 1835 certain legal changes were made, but it also gave a grant to the borough of a court of quarter sessions. Of course, it is mentioned also in the Act known as the Wales and Berwick Act, 1836, when it was made a county on its own. There are, I believe, only three other such boroughs in England and Wales—Carmarthen, Haverfordwest and Lichfield.
From a convenience point of view Berwick-upon-Tweed is situated between 67 or 70 miles from Newcastle where the


county quarter sessions will be held in future. Those sessions will last certainly two or three days, and the various jurors and witnesses will have to travel to Newcastle-on-Tyne. They will probably have to stay there the two or three days, because it is never possible to know when their own case will be called. That is a great inconvenience to people who have to be away from their work and home, and it will increase greatly the public expenditure.
One final point is that the Boundary Commission, when making its report, suggested that the three petty sessional divisions contiguous to Berwick-upon-Tweed, Norham and Islandshire, Glendale and Belford should be considered as a local government unit centred on Berwick-upon-Tweed. The Boundary Commission been has done away with for the time being, but the sort of suggestion put forward then, which I have mentioned, may be advanced again and might be agreed to. If that did happen it would mean a total population for Berwick-upon-Tweed and those three petty sessional divisions of over 30,000. Those people in the area if that came to pass would only have to travel up to 10 or 12 miles to Berwick-upon-Tweed instead of having to go 60 or 70 miles to Newcastle. In Berwick-upon-Tweed the average over the last three years has been four cases a year, but in the other petty sessional divisions that I have mentioned the average has been five per year, so that that would increase the numbers.
I feel that this Amendment appeals to the country as a whole, and I believe that most Members on both sides of the Committee would like to see it accepted by the Government. It gives a sense of fairness to the small people, and though it gives no guarantee to keep any court going, it does suggest that full consideration shall be given to the matter from an historical or convenience point of view. It would not commit the Lord Chancellor in any way. He has only to consider the various points, and I feel that my own case as well as others would be carefully considered by the Lord Chancellor with the result that he would maintain the position of Berwick-upon-Tweed.

Mr. Richards: I find myself in considerable sympathy with the Amendment. This is a case where we

ought to be very careful about doing away with some of the old traditions with which we have been so long associated. I feel very strongly for the non-county boroughs, who are gradually being deprived of their privileges. Here is another case. The commission of the peace is being taken away from them. An arbitrary figure has been selected, as the mover of the Amendment suggested, and if these localities fall below it they are to be deprived in future of the privilege they have had of having a commission of the peace of their own.
I have in mind particularly the town I happen to represent, which is the centre of a very considerable industrial area in which there are many instances of local commissions having hitherto acted in a very fair manner. Other old privileges they have been losing in recent times. The roads have been taken away from them and also education. They no longer have their own education committees. We are gradually taking away from these people rights that they have enjoyed for many years I hope for this reason that the Amendment will be favourably considered by the Government. It seems eminently reasonable that the Lord Chancellor should review some of these cases, and that if he comes to the conclusion that some of the privileges ought to be retained, they shall be retained.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I wish to reinforce the case that has been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in moving the Amendment. I would appeal to the Attorney-General to reserve to himself some discretionary power. I am certain that if he does so he will give satisfaction to a great many hon. Members who represent boroughs from which the commission of the peace is to be taken away under the Bill. It is always rather difficult to stand before the House of Commons and plead the cause of a particular place. I have had the honour of representing an ancient borough for a great many years in this House, and it is very rarely that one gets the opportunity of putting forward the case of one's borough in particular.
The borough of Saffron Walden is threatened under the Bill. Its people are afraid not only that their recorder will be taken away but that this is only


the beginning of a process which will in the end result in the borough being destroyed as well. This eating-in process is very much feared by my friends and constituents in Saffron Walden. I support the argument which has been put forward by my hon. and learned Friend. I cannot plead the case on the grounds that there is an excess of crime in Saffron Walden. Were I to do so, I might destroy the very basis of the reason for which I have risen in this Committee. Nor can I say that the authorities are overladen in Saffron Walden, because that would not be the case.
I would remind the Attorney-General that, were the recorder to be taken away under the Bill, nobody knows the extent to which crime might spring up in this ancient borough. After all, if we take away the keeper, poachers immediately come upon the land. If we take away the policemen, crime shows its head. If we take away the guardian, the children misbehave. The Attorney-General should really take great care in the course which he is obviously intent upon pursuing, and before he removes from them so eminent a representative as the recorder, who is regarded locally as part and parcel of the life of the borough.
5.45 p.m.
I should like to reinforce the argument put hitherto in regard to the geographical situation of Saffron Walden. It is in a north-western pocket of Essex. The travel arrangements between Saffron Walden and Chelmsford, to which it would be necessary for jurors to travel, are extremely difficult. As it is, the transport services of this country are not only very expensive but grossly overloaded at the present time. The taking away from a locality of characteristics which make up its local life should be very strongly resisted by this Committee. Further, on the grounds of history referred to in the Amendment, I do not think that any corner of England is more historical or more worthy of the respect of the Attorney-General and of this Committee. The whole atmosphere of Saffron Walden is instinct with history. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who seems so determined, should persist on his way, he will be slighting the reputation of this borough, and he will be taking away from it one of its characteristics which it regards as most precious.
If the case of Saffron Walden itself does not prevail, I conclude by coming back to my original plea, which is a very serious one. It is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should reserve for himself a discretionary power, in that he may, justly and fairly as he said to us this afternoon after Questions, arbitrate upon the many cases of decapitation, of which the miserable victims are sitting all around the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Can he soften his heart and have mercy upon some of us? If my borough is to be destroyed, do let others be saved in respect of their commissions.

The Attorney-General: After the speech of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) my heart certainly bleeds for Saffron Walden. I realise that the learned recorder must have had a most salutary influence upon potential law-breakers in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, if indeed any such there be. Last year, at all events, the learned recorder did not have a single case before him. I do not know whether I should do anything to encourage the large expenditure of public money which must, and I hope is, incurred in Saffron Walden, in adding to the enormous collection of white gloves which must be possessed by the learned recorder.
I am afraid that I shall never be a good politician. I see the other side too readily. I must confess at once that I have great sympathy with this Amendment, and that I do not resile for a moment from what I said yesterday—in the quotations which the hon. and learned Gentleman made—when I was dealing with these matters. Moreover, I am impressed with the view that if certain of these courts, I think a comparatively small number of them, were to fix the dates of their sessions at a more convenient time in consultation with the other recorders in the county and with the chairmen of the county sessions, some of them might be useful for cross-committals under the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, and so save time and expense. One of the troubles, as some of us and especially those who belong to the legal profession, must recognise, about some of these old recorderships is that their courts have not been of much use because the sittings have not been fixed at convenient times.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the case of Stamford. I am not


saying that that is a case in which the recorder has not done his best to fix his sessions at suitable times. I do not want it to be thought for a moment that my criticism relates to that case, because I know nothing of the circumstances. I observe, however, that that recordership, for which the hon. and learned Gentleman made a strong plea, dealt with only three cases in 1948. I realise that these recorderships are paid at a salary which is entirely nominal and, in a great many cases, does not cover the expenses of travelling to and fro, expenses which are not allowed for Income Tax purposes.
But those who apply for appointment as recorders—it is an appointment carrying some distinction—must and, I am sure, do recognise not only that the possession of a recordership is an honour, but that it is one which entails the discharge of public and judicial duties, sometimes at inconvenience and even at some little expense. If we were to accept the principle of the Amendment in considering particular cases it would have to be made quite clear that that consideration was carefully borne in mind. That is the other side of the case, which I confess I see because I generally see both sides.
On the side against the Amendment there are considerable difficulties, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu). If one gave the Lord Chancellor discretion in this matter without providing some very definite criteria or very clear tests as to the manner in which he is to exercise his discretion, one would be putting a considerable burden upon him, and I have no doubt that in making distinctions between one borough and another he might cause a good deal of local heartburning. If the power were too widely given, the Lord Chancellor would obviously be exposed to the risk of a good deal of undesirable canvassing and pressure.
On the other hand, the hon. and learned Gentleman has sought to put in his Amendment certain criteria by which the Lord Chancellor may judge the matter, and on the whole we* are prepared to accept the principle of his Amendment, though not necessarily in the terms in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put it upon the Order Paper. We should like to look at this again and see

whether we can draw up rather more precise terms and more definite criteria as to the manner in which the Lord Chancellor should exercise his discretion, and in doing that I think we should have to make it quite clear that there is no intention whatever of exercising this discretion in every case. It will have to be exercised with very great care and very great jealousy, but there are a few instances—I have had this in mind, as I indicated in our discussion yesterday—where it might be desirable, possibly not only for historical reasons but because historical or geographical reasons were combined with the interests of justice, to make an exception in a particular case.
In those circumstances, with a view to finding an appropriate formula which will result in the various tests being conjunctive rather than disjunctive, as they are in the Amendment, we are prepared to consider the matter if the hon. and learned Gentleman will now withdraw his Amendment. We undertake to accept his Amendment in principle and to put down an appropriate Amendment on the Report stage.

Mr. Collins: May I put a point to my right hon. and learned Friend before he sits down? While I thank him for the manner in which he has dealt with the matter, I should like to point out that he mentioned only recorderships. In accepting the principle of the Amendment, does he also accept that part of the Amendment which refers to separate commissions of the peace?

The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir. We have taken the view that it would be impossible, without a considerable and complicated alteration in the law, which certainly could not be accomplished in the scope of this Bill, to separate a recordership from the commission of the peace with which it is associated.

Several hon. Members: rose —

The Deputy-Chairman: May I appeal to the Committee, in view of what the Attorney-General has said about the Amendment, that the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) might speak?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the way in which he has met


the spirit of this Amendment. I am sure that, while there may still be those who wish to put particular points to him affecting certain recorderships, the whole Committee welcomes his acceptance of the Amendment in principle. I agree with him that each case will have to be most carefully considered on its merits. It seems to me that the retention of such discretionary power by the Lord Chancellor may enable an improvement to be made in the dates of sessions and also perhaps in the remuneration of certain recorders, bearing in mind the fact that if this power is exercised it will probably mean that they will sit for longer times at different dates and that it will ultimately result in a speedier and more efficient administration of justice. Having regard to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I propose to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I feel that we can leave any further discussion on it or any point on it until a further Amendment is tabled on Report stage. I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the Amendment.

Mr. C. Williams: There are other points to be raised about this. I shall not object to the withdrawal, but this is the second time some of us have been prevented from putting our points of view simply through the speed with which—

Mr. James Hudson: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has announced that he does not object to the withdrawal of the Amendment which has been proposed. Is it in Order for discussion to continue in these circumstances?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is quite entitled to speak. I only expressed the opinion, which I thought was that of the Committee, that we might get on with the Business.

Mr. C. Williams: Thank you very much, Mr. Bowles. I shall not carry on the discussion more than to put one point. This Amendment brings in geographical position. I see opposite two hon. Members—I hope they have come to support the Amendment—who in their time have tried to represent the borough of Dartmouth. That borough is completely cut off by a river on one side. It has a terrific history as well. Towns in the

centre of the country have been cited but that is the kind of illustration which should be given. Geographically that community is entirely separated from the district around. I have listened to the whole of the Debate but I have not yet heard one instance of that sort, of a town which is completely cut off, has completely different qualities and also has a terrific history. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland) will be only too pleased to give me the sort of support for Dartmouth that I have always given him for Plymouth-

The Deputy-Chairman: Is it the wish of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I have been asked to put a question on this. I am not quite sure that I understand it. It has been raised by the Association of Municipal Corporations. If a petition is granted for the creation of a new commission, does the Bill contain sufficient machinery in regard to the transfer of costs and expenses consequent upon the creation of the new commission? I believe that is the shortest way of putting it. Presumably until that new commission is granted the expenses which arise consequent upon the Bill will fall upon the county. Does machinery exist for securing the transfer of the responsibility for the expenses when a new commission is issued?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. York: I have waited until now in order to put a case to the Government which could not strictly be put on any of the Amendments. It refers to the Liberty of Ripon, which is possibly one of only two pre-Norman jurisdictions left in this country. As it refers to a liberty which is an area of land and not to a borough, it was not in Order on any of the Amendments, and I want to put this case to the Government because, although what the Attorney-General has just said on a previous Amendment makes a difference, this is a case which will have to be considered as a special


and unique case and not amongst the many cases which will be considered when boroughs are dealt with.
I will outline briefly the history which attaches to this liberty because it probably originated in a grant of land to Saint Wilfrid in about 670 and certainly by the time of the Conquest, it consisted of an extensive number of privileges granted to the Archbishop of York and administered by him. In fact, until the Reformation it was a county and was known as Riponshire, but subsequent to the Reformation the privileges and courts and powers of the courts of the liberty have slowly decreased in value until today the only remaining part or function or franchise of the Liberty of Ripon is the court of quarter sessions.
Perhaps my hon. Friend who will succeed me as the Member for Ripon will be able to elaborate that brief outline. With regard to the extent of the liberty, it consists of the Borough of Ripon, about 22 or 23 parishes outside, and a considerable area of wild country of two dales which are two quite separate geographical features. It is, moreover, the north-eastern section of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The population today is somewhere about 15,000 people. If the liberty court is abolished, the people committed to quarter sessions will have to go to Wakefield, which not only is more than 40 miles away but, in order to get there, one has to go through the large City of Leeds. Another important point is that the chairman of the court is the county court judge. That meets the point of view expressed on several occasions by the Attorney-General that the meetings of these quarter sessions should be staggered. In this case they must be staggered because the same judge deals with both the county court and the quarter sessions of the liberty. Therefore, by the retention of this court we get public convenience for the jurors and prisoners and also good justice from the county court judge.

Mr. Daines: Must we have it?

Mr. York: Yes. History is good for the hon. Member, but I promise him it will not last much longer. The objections that there are difficulties about

juries are non-existent because the area is so widely scattered and the geography is so varied that there is a wide selection from which to choose. Of course, it may be thought that non-county boroughs who may lose their recorders will be jealous if this old institution is retained, but I am certain that none of these non-county boroughs would object, because none of them has the unique history which attaches to the liberty court. Secondly, of course, it is much easier to get from some of these non-county boroughs to the county quarter sessions than it is to get from this isolated district. If the Lord Chancellor comes to consider this point, he will find that it is an area which should be covered by this quarter sessional court, and that can be brought about by making this court serve an area slightly wider than the present liberty area. That can be done simply by the inclusion of all the rural districts in which the liberty is now situated, namely, the Rural District of Patley Bridge and the Rural District of Ripon, in addition to the Borough of Ripon. I take those districts because, although they are not today the effective districts, they are the only districts for which I could get accurate figures from the 1931 Census, and the total population of those three areas is well over the 20,000 mark, which would then enable the area of the liberty to retain its commissioner of peace and, therefore, its quarter sessional court.
I hope I have said enough to make the case for the Liberty of Ripon to be one of the cases which will be considered under the dispensation to which we have just listened. I am convinced that it would make for good justice, for the convenience of the people of that area—where, I am glad to say, we are not very criminally-minded people—and moreover it would maintain and preserve one, if not the only, pre-Norman jurisdiction left in the country today.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York). This ancient Liberty of Ripon, which was given in the Seventh Century, was one of the first examples of part of the Prerogative of the Crown passing into the hands of the subject. It gave people in that area the liberty to hold their pleas in courts of their own. That was about the first example of this happening in the


country. Certain other liberties, of course, were given to bishops and archbishops, and some actually passed into lay hands, but the majority of the liberties disappeared at the Reformation. Probably only three other liberties survived the Local Government Act of 1888, St. Edmunds, the Isle of Ely, the Stoke of—

Hon. Members: "Soke."

Mr. Tiffany: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is misreading his guide book.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I should have said the Soke of Peterborough. The only remaining power that the Liberty of Ripon has is the quarter sessions and the commissioner of peace. Unlike the boroughs, there is no recorder for that quarter sessions, and therefore the argument of the Attorney-General about the expense of a recorder would not have any weight in this case. As my hon. Friend has said, the Liberty of Ripon covers about 150 square miles and has a population of over 20,000. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, when he comes to word that part of the Bill which is to convey the meaning of the Amendment which he has in principle accepted, he should be prepared to frame it so as to include these ancient liberties. as well as boroughs.

Mr. Mitchison: I wish to ask the Attorney-General one very short question. I observe that the Soke of Peterborough has had certain ancient rights expressly preserved, and I understand from what happened in another place that one of the grounds for that was that, although very extensive, they were never exercised. Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us quite clearly what is the difference between a "liberty" and a "soke"? Is it merely a question of amount?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman answers that question, upon which I feel sure he will require considerable advice, I am somewhat tempted by the remarks of my hon. Friends on this side to inform the Committee in some detail of the history of Chichester, particularly having regard to the reference to St. Wilfrid, which was most interesting, as St. Wilfrid was first Bishop of the primary diocese of Selsey, which was subsequently incorporated in the diocese of Chichester.

Mr. York: He was also Bishop of Durham.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: That is a mere bagatelle. Nevertheless, I do not propose to take the Committee through the early history of Chichester, which goes back a long way in comparison with these upstart cities of the North, in view of the exceedingly generous attitude of the Attorney-General towards the position and experience of the courts of the smaller boroughs.
I want specifically to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman what is particularly referred to in subsection (6), where all other existing commissions of the peace and appointments of deputy recorders and other officers are being abolished, if they are not amongst the categories referred to in subsection (1). It is quite possible that there may be a certain number of ancient and, perhaps, small but important commissions of the peace and officers covered by the subsection whom we are about to cause to pass out of existence in ignorance and without regret. I feel sure the Committee would wish to have from the right hon. and learned Gentleman what information he can give us concerning those with whom we are about to part without obsequies.

Mr. C. Williams: I should like to assure the Committee that whatever else happens I am not going into the merits or demerits of recorderships. As far as I understand, recorders are a very respectable body of people, and I would not like to say any more than that. [Interruption.] If hon. Members want a closer definition, it is that they are the sort of thing, as far as lawyers are concerned, which is very highly commended at the local show.
It would be gravely discourteous of me if on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," I did not say a few words about the improvement which has been made in the Clause. One certain fact about the Clause as it was originally drawn was that it would have had considerable opposition from myself and a good many other people, for it would have taken away the commission from Torquay. As that was put right in another place, this defect in the Clause no longer existed when the Bill came to the House of Commons.
6.15 p.m.
When it reached here, however, I naturally had to look at the Clause from other angles, and it has been my wish and the wish of very large numbers of people, both inside and outside the House, to know which, and how many, boroughs are having their courts taken from them. It is quite likely that the people serving in those courts have very little knowledge that this privilege is to be taken away from them. I am supported in this belief in that even up to a comparatively late hour last night the Attorney-General had not the haziest idea what they were. I refer now to column 1842 of HANSARD, because I feel sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be the last person in any way to break his word. I asked him last night if we might have a list of the boroughs affected. He replied that he would communicate it to me. I am perfectly justified in asking for that list to be published fully, and I ask whoever is representing the Government on the Front Bench whether that will be done.
I should like also to ask the representative of the Government whether there has been any kind of communication with the clerks, or whoever may be the right persons, of the individual courts to explain their position. In every single case there should have been some connection between the local authorities and the Government who propose to legislate in this way. To take an axe and lay down a figure, and then to say that every place which is not up to that figure should be cut away, is an entirely arbitrary procedure. If my contention needs any reinforcement, I would refer to the many excellent and Tory-minded speeches which have been made by hon. Members opposite on some of the objections we have made to the Clause. Now that the Attorney-General has returned, let me say that I was thanking him most sincerely for the promise he made to me last night. I am looking forward to the list and I hope that it will, as it should, be made public.
There is one point—I am not dealing with the case of Ripon—which should be covered in our discussion on the Clause, because it has not so far been dealt with. There is a considerable number of small boroughs which have had no chance

whatever of putting their case before Parliament or in any other way. Before a local borough has its power taken away, there should be a reasonable chance for its case to be put before the House. We have had many instances. I have already referred to Dartmouth, but let me refer to two ancient capitals, far older than Ripon and places of that sort. One is Launceston, which is the ancient capital of north-east Cornwall. Surely, it should have had its case represented before the House of Commons. Unfortunately, the same applies to Truro, another centre of the greatest country in England. Simply because their Members take no interest and are leaving the county—for the county's good—these two towns of terrific historical importance have no chance whatever of having their case put before the House. I say it is a gross unfairness. I doubt if the hon. Members themselves even know what is happening, for they are so disunited and so absolutely and entirely divorced "from what is going on in Cornwall.
Although certainly this Clause has been improved from time to time—and I thank the Attorney-General most sincerely for what he promised just now and last night—I still feel that many hon. Members opposite more particularly those who are absent would, but for the fear of the Patronage Secretary, have lifted up their voices against the abolition of these many small boroughs.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) raised a point in regard to costs in connection with the commissions. As I understand the position, the Clause does not alter the existing law in this respect, but we will look at the point and make quite sure that it is covered.
The hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) made a vigorous piece of special pleading for the constituency with which he is concerned. We naturally listened with sympathy and interest to the historical details which he provided for the Committee. I hope the Committee will feel that we have not been unyielding or obstinate in regard to the proposals put forward by hon. Members opposite, but I really cannot allow them to "soak" me with this one. There are no grounds on which we can make an exception in the case of Ripon. It is a town with a


comparatively small population; less than half that which we agreed yesterday was the proper optimum figure for a separate commission of the peace.

Mr. York: I ask the Attorney-General not to refer to the Liberty of Ripon as a town.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry to have fallen into error in regard to this important, historical and traditional matter. The liberty is at all events a small one.

Mr. York: May I interrupt again? The Attorney-General has not got this right. The effective figure as far as the Liberty of Ripon is concerned is 20,000 and not 35,000 because the liberty has its own petty sessional as well as its quarter sessional court.

The Attorney-General: But the population is half that which we decided was an appropriate one for a separate commission of the peace. I think the hon. Member will agree that if he sought to make out a case for Ripon to be treated exceptionally, he would have to make it with reference to that figure of 35,000—

Mr. York: No, 20,000.

The Attorney-General: I see the point which the hon. Member has in mind, but once one makes an exception, one has to look at the figure which we decided yesterday as the optimum figure. The 20,000 is already an exception in itself to what appears to be the optimum figure for a separate commission of the peace.

Mr. York: I am sorry to interrupt, but if the Liberty of Ripon were today as large as it has been in the past, that is to say, more than 20,000, would it not then be allowed to retain its petty sessional and its quarter sessional powers?

The Attorney-General: That is a hypothetical question and, as I said earlier this afternoon, I must be careful about answering hypothetical questions. The fact is that, great as the liberty used to be, it is rather smaller at present and I am afraid that if we accepted the proposition that liberties were to retain their separate commissions, we should be driving a horse and cart right through the principle of the Bill. Interesting as these old authorities may be, great as their historical tradition no doubt is, we

really cannot accept the view that they ought to be treated exceptionally and brought back into a position in which they enjoy a separate commission.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say anything about subsection (6)?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) raised the question of what was embraced in subsection (6). I think the two main cases are the Liberty of Ripon and the case of Romney Marsh, which is also a very interesting historical place where four jurats and a bailiff are elected annually to perform various judicial functions as justices. I think they are also coroners, but, of course, the commission is very small indeed. I have had associations with that area and look at it with sympathy, but, interesting as it is, I am afraid it would be impracticable to keep a separate commission.

Mr. C. Williams: The right hon. and learned Gentleman promised a list last night. He promised it to me, but I do not feel that I should have a unique list in my possession. Will he have it published, so that everyone may know the details?

The Attorney-General: We will give that suggestion consideration such as any suggestion coming from the hon. Member deserves.

Mr. Williams: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is carrying too far this complete incapacity of the Government to make up their mind whether they can or cannot produce a list of about 100 names which could be published. It is really unique, even for this Government and even for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, not to be able to make up their mind on whether they can, or cannot publish a list of that sort. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean that next he will say this kind of list is a matter the publication of which must be approved by the Cabinet, and all that kind of thing? I have no doubt that he has to be cautious, and I quite appreciate that he ought not to be incautious after the appalling mess he made of certain things today.

Mr. Tiffany: In view of some of the statements made about the Soke of Peterborough, I was hoping my right hon. and


learned Friend might be able to enlighten some hon. Members opposite about the position there and inform them that it is not a "stoke"—that may be a Yorkshire way of pronouncing it—but is a soke, and also that a liberty and a soke are the same thing. I have heard it referred to as the "Sewerless Soke." I hoped that my right hon. and learned Friend would make a reference to this, in view of the rather tasteless humour brought into the matter.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: rose —

The Chairman: I think the Committee must agree that we have had a long discussion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11. —(JUSTICES AND COURTS IN LONDON.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 5, leave out "proceedings," and insert "case."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13. —(SIZE AND CHAIRMANSHIP OF BENCH.)

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 10, line 39, to leave out from "sitting," in line 39, to the second "as," in line 40.

Mr. Royle: On a point of Order. Would it be for the convenience of the Committee and save time if the Amendment standing in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) were considered with the Amendment which has just been moved?—In page 10, line 41. leave out from "than," to end of line 42, and insert:
seven in the case of quarter sessions and five in any other case or such lesser number as may be.

The Chairman: We might take that course if the Committee has no objection.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I certainly have no objection. It would probably facilitate our discussion. To some extent

the hon. Member's Amendment and my own are directed to much the same point. I do not propose to say anything, nor would it be in Order to do so on my Amendment, about the proposal to limit the number of justices who ran sit at petty sessions. There is something to be said for that, but I desire to draw attention to the fact that this Clause does not prescribe the number who are to sit at quarter sessions or indeed the number who are to sit at petty sessions. We are asked here to give general approval to the proposition that the number of justices who should attend, sit and adjudicate at quarter sessions should hereafter be limited by rules.
On that proposition two questions arise. The first is whether it is desirable at this time to limit the number of justices attending quarter sessions? The second is, if it is desirable, to what figure is the number to be limited? We heard on Second Reading a speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) in which he pointed out the many advantages which ensue from a full attendance of justices at quarter sessions. I feel sure that those of us who have had experience of the practice regard it as having a great deal to be said in its favour. I know that at some quarter sessions the rota system already applies. It may work in some counties, but I must admit that I am a little nervous as to the effect of imposing a limitation on attendance at quarter sessions at this time.
At some quarter sessions it is not known until the work begins how much work there will be. At my own quarter sessions in Northamptonshire, one usually finds a good attendance of magistrates. Then, when the pleas are taken, it is possible to determine how long the quarter sessions are likely to last and whether it is necessary to divide the court into two courts. It is at that point where, if necessary, the division of the magistrates between two courts takes place. If the number who can adjudicate is to be limited in these days when petrol is in such short supply—and I get a number of letters from magistrates saying how difficult they find it even now to get to quarter sessions—I fear that it will be found difficult to obtain the attendance of a number in excess of the number who will be entitled to adjudicate.
The Royal Commission recognised the difficulties and said that there was no ideal solution to the problem. I agree, and I agree that it is a bad thing to see a large body of justices adjudicating either at petty sessions or at quarter sessions. One has sometimes seen almost public disagreement as to a sentence, but if that is used as an argument for some limitation in numbers the answer can be made that public disagreement was not necessary, and that the magistrates might have retired to their private room and reached their decision privately. I do not attach much importance to that aspect of the matter as an argument in favour of the limitation of numbers at quarter sessions.
It will be difficult to secure the attendance of magistrates which one wishes to see at quarter sessions, even if they are not to adjudicate, unless the right hon. Gentleman intends to fix a pretty high limit for quarter sessions. The defect of this Clause is that we are asked to approve in principle the limitation of numbers at quarter sessions without having any idea of the sort of limitation in principle which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. Can he tell us what sort of figure he has in mind? I certainly think, and I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees* with me, that importance attaches to the desirability of a great many justices attending quarter sessions even though not all of them sit and adjudicate.

Mr. Royle: As a result of the two Amendments which we are considering, we have three alternatives before us. In discussing the Amendments we are discussing two points relating to the same subject, but I am in total disagreement with the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) on this matter. One alternative appears to me to be what is contained in the Bill, which leaves the question of determining the number of magistrates who shall sit to the rules which will ultimately be placed before the Lord Chancellor. The second alternative is the one I am now suggesting—that we should in the Bill establish the numbers in a statutory form. The third alternative, suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, is that the matter shall be left to rule in the case of courts of summary jurisdiction but that in the case of quarter

sessions the situation shall remain as it now is without alteration.
Clause 13 contains a provision for the making of rules to establish the size of the benches of magistrates. The aim of my Amendment is to ensure that these limitations shall be fixed by Parliament and shall be contained in the Bill rather than be left to the decision of any appointed committee which might advise the Lord Chancellor on these matters. No better committee could possibly be set up to decide these principles and these matters than this Committee which is now considering the matter in this Chamber. I do not think that it can be controverted that there is a wealth of legal knowledge here which will enable us to determine what is a good number to sit on the magisterial bench. I suggest that the figure mentioned in the Amendment in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) is worthy of the consideration of the Committee.
During the Second Reading Debate I suggested that in present circumstances there was a real embarrassment to the bench and to the defendant by the unwieldy number of magistrates who sometimes sit on the bench. It is that which I am trying to eliminate by my Amendment. In his Second Reading speech, the Attorney-General drew the attention of the House to two very striking cases of benches being "packed" for a specific purpose. The examples he gave were such exceptionally strong ones that I cannot see how the Government can possibly resist laying down here and now what the numbers of magistrates who sit on benches should be. I should have thought, in view of the two examples the Attorney-General quoted—I am sorry he is not present at the moment—there would have been no doubt of his support for my Amendment.
In the case of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and the Summary Procedure (Domestic Proceedings) Act, 1937, a limited number of justices sit on the bench. I am sure I am expressing the opinion of anyone who has had experience of the administration of those particular Acts when I say that the arrangement in those cases is admirable, and that no one would think of suggesting that we should go back to an unlimited number


of magistrates. Having proved the desirability of having a limited number of magistrates in the courts I have mentioned, I feel that we should extend the principle into other courts and thereby abolish a tremendous amount of embarrassment.
The hon. and learned Member for Daventry talked about the difficulties which might arise at quarter sessions with regard to the numbers of magistrates attending, and the like. It is not beyond the wit of man to ensure by a rota system that in cases of that kind there are sufficient magistrates present within the numbers which I now recommend. I hope that when the decision is made on this Bill, we may take it out of the hands of any recommending committee, even out of the hands of the Lord Chancellor, and that in courts of summary jurisdiction the number of magistrates sitting shall not be more than five, and in quarter sessions not more than seven.

Mr. Ede: We have had put forward two diametrically opposed points of view. There was a time when I favoured an unlimited number of magistrates at quarter sessions. That was when I was a very junior justice and might not have been invited had there been a limitation on the number. Having seen the effect of a reasonable limitation of the numbers by voluntary arrangement, and at the same time steps being taken to ensure that sufficient magistrates should be present, I feel that it is desirable that there should be some rule on this point. It is very wrong that there should appear to be trial by public meeting. It is very wrong that there should be suspicion of very large attendances on the bench because of the personality of one of the participants in the dispute which may be adjudicated upon. There was a time when that, so far as appeals to quarter sessions were concerned, amounted in certain cases to a scandal, and steps had to be taken to avoid it.
I admit that the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) put a perfectly sound point when he said that there are difficulties in sustaining attendance at quarter sessions. My own quarter sessions, for example, started on Tuesday and continued until Friday with two courts sitting the whole time. In fact under the Criminal Justice Act

which we recently passed, power has been given to make legal the three courts which they had been illegally operating for some time. In those circumstances it is essential that there shall be some arrangement, which hitherto has been a voluntary arrangement, whereby there is a sufficiency of magistrates sitting in order that the courts can function. I hope I have indicated that I understand the range of the problem.
6.45 p.m.
Unless there is a real limitation of attendance, no voluntary arrangement can prevent a justice who insists on sitting from attending the court. I have seen a bench of over 100, and the senior magistrates on that occasion complained that the juniors had grabbed all the seats and they were left standing at the back. If we desire to avoid that, it is clear that some limitation must be fixed. If there is a commission of possibly 500 or 600 people, we may very well be at the mercy of a sudden swamping of the court and therefore I think it is desirable that there should be a limitation on the number.
I think also that there should be some discretion with regard to the numbers. There may be occasions when it is desirable that a bench—in the case of some important decision having to be made—should have a sufficient number present to ensure that considered judgment is given without having so many that real consideration becomes impossible. If there are 50 or 60 people retiring to the magistrates' room to consider the sentence to be imposed, it becomes very difficult to get any real consideration of the matter involved. The case for some limitation has, I think, been proved.
It is, of course, always flattering to say to an audience, "After all, you are the people dealing with this matter." That gives everyone a nice feeling that the gentleman making the proposition has infinite confidence in the people he is addressing. But this is a very important matter. We must have regard to the circumstances where more than one court will certainly have to be constituted and maintained. Therefore, to put into the Bill certain figures which in normal circumstances might be regarded as suitable would, in my opinion, be a mistake. I suggest to the Committee that the course proposed in the Bill is the soundest one of the three. But we recognise that some


limitation should be imposed and that the rules committee should be left to work out the limitation. It should be understood that they must have regard to all the considerations I have mentioned, and doubtless to others which will be known to hon. and learned Gentlemen who practise in these courts as being desirable to have in mind when the rules are drafted.
There is the further difficulty that if we put figures into the Bill, and if experience indicates that it is desirable for one reason or another that some amendment should be made we shall have to wait for another Bill before the arrangement can be altered. If the considerations which I have mentioned are borne in mind by the people framing the rules, it should be possible to make an amendment, if it is necessary to do so, without calling in the tremendous machinery of waiting for another Bill. No matter what Government may be in office, Parliamentary time is always limited, and the difficulty of arranging for a Bill to deal with a point such as that would be quite considerable. If we leave it with the rules committee, we shall ensure that, if it is necessary to make an amendment either one way or the other, or. if experience shows that some error has been made on the first occasion, it will be easier to make an alteration. I hope, therefore, that neither of these Amendments will be pressed, and that the very full consideration given to this matter by the Law Officers and others interested, who commend the Bill to the Committee, will carry some weight with the Committee.

Mr. H. Hynd: I was disappointed to hear the views expressed by the Home Secretary. First, I should like to comment on the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). His Amendment does not seem to me to be logical. I thought that he made an unanswerable case for a limitation of the number of magistrates both at quarter sessions and at magistrates' courts. On studying the arguments he used to justify differentiation, I thought that he did not make it clear just why there should be a difference between the counts. Undoubtedly, one deals with more important cases and has a professional chairman. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the principle applies equally in the two cases.
I was somewhat puzzled by the argument he used about the shortage of petrol preventing magistrates from travelling a distance to quarter sessions because, if there is the limitation which is proposed, there will be a saving of petrol, as there will not be so many magistrates travelling to the courts. In practice, as the Home Secretary has indicated, there is a voluntary rota arrangement on many benches. I believe that system works successfully. It certainly works successfully at the court of quarter sessions with which I am connected, and that is perhaps the busiest in the whole country.
The Home Secretary made the very important suggestion, which I believe was the main basis of his argument, that perhaps this Committee is not the one best qualified to reach a decision on this matter. He said that legal gentlemen were involved, that experience must be taken into consideration and that we should not jump to a decision here. In reply, I would point out that this Amendment was put down by my hon. Friend the Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle) after consultation with the Magistrates' Association and that this is the unanimous decision of the Council of the Magistrates' Association, which I suppose hon. Members will agree contains the cream of the experience of the magistrates of this country. Therefore, it is not a question of asking this Committee to reach a snap decision without proper consideration. This matter has been carefully considered and there will be great disappointment in the Magistrates' Association if this limitation is not accepted.
Of course, the limitation is accepted in principle, and then we come to what is the real issue behind both Amendments—namely, the question whether the limitation should be left for arrangement by rule or whether the number should be inserted in the Bill. There is a growing opinion in all parts of the Committee against matters being left out of Acts of Parliament to be handled departmentally or by rules and regulations. The only argument to justify that procedure is if there are complications and if it would mean unduly lengthening a Bill in order to insert all the details in it rather than to have them issued as separate regulations. This is a clear case where there is a simple issue at stake. That simple


issue is what is to be the maximum number of magistrates at quarter sessions and at magistrates' courts. I cannot see any objection to stating that number in the Bill, apart from the last argument used by the Home Secretary about possible alterations in the future. I recognise the validity of that argument. It must be taken into consideration, but I should have imagined that the importance of getting the number into the Bill would outweigh any possible objection about future arrangements.
I submit that the proposal in our Amendment is practicable and that it should be acceptable to the Committee and to the Home Secretary. In regard to the Amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry, I suggest that if the number is to apply to the magistrates' court, it should apply also to the court of quarter sessions, for the reasons which have been stated. I wonder whether it is too late to ask the Home. Secretary to look at this problem again, perhaps between now and a later stage of the Bill, to see whether, in view of the fact that the Amendment is strongly supported by the Magistrates' Association, he can give some hope that the matter will be decided once and for all by putting the figures into the Act.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) rather attacked me for the views I have expressed. He wanted to know the reason the view was expressed that a full attendance at quarter sessions was desirable. If he wants to find reasons expressed in favour of that contention, I would refer him to the speeches made on the Second Reading of this Bill, which I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat now and which I did not think it was necessary to repeat when I raised this question. I tabled my Amendment in order to raise that question, and I think that we have had a useful discussion upon it. Of course, the fact that the Magistrates' Association have come to a conclusion is not binding upon this Committee, but it is a matter to which we should pay considerable attention.
At first sight I am inclined to think that the maximum of seven in the case of quarter sessions and five in other cases proposed in the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is on the low side. There is

force in the right hon. Gentleman's contention that there should be some margin of operation. I agree with him that it is impossible to have 200, 300 or 400 magistrates attending at quarter sessions. I think that he has made out a case for a limit and I think he has also made out a case for not having that limit in the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Central Hackney that normally we do not like leaving over questions which are important to be settled by rules. Therefore, I think it was right to get the right hon. Gentleman on his feet to justify that course, and I think he has justified it in this instance.
I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to put the limits in the Bill. I asked whether he could give some indication of the Government's intention in regard to these limits, but I do not press that point. I ask him to bear in mind as a matter of operation that at some quarter sessions all the magistrates sit together on one bench while the pleas are taken. There can be no objection to that. It would be a great pity, I think, if the number who could sit on the bench during that stage of the proceedings was limited. It would be rather invidious if some sat on the bench and all the rest waited with the jurors in waiting to see whether the court divided. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take care to see that there is nothing to limit the number during that stage of the hearing. It is only after the pleas have been taken that in many parts of the country the court decides whether it shall divide or not. When the court divides to go into each case—whether a man has pleaded guilty or not guilty then by all means let there be a limit, but let there be some flexibility. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to go further than he has done. I do not want to press him on that subject.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the remarks he has made, especially because they remind me of one point with which I meant to deal. I think that it is desirable that justices not sitting on the trials should have the opportunity, where there is a qualified chairman in the chair, of seeing the way in which a trial should be conducted. I also hope that, when quarter sessions and petty sessions come to arrange the magistrates who are to be asked to attend, and whose attendance it is desired to secure, they


will make arrangements by which there will be a judicious sprinkling of experienced and new magistrates on the rotas. That is very desirable, because, in addition to listening, it is sometimes advisable that the new magistrates should also realise the responsibility of reaching a decision, and of doing it in consultation with, and after listening to the views of, their more experienced colleagues.
I cannot give any very clear indication tonight what the numbers will be, but, for the reasons that I originally gave, I think that in some cases the maximum numbers set down here might not be sufficient in the case of a very important trial at quarter sessions.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have regard to the point I raised about not putting a ceiling on while the pleas are taken.

Mr. Ede: I think it is very desirable that, at that stage, as many magistrates as possible should be present.

Mr. Royle: While I am naturally disappointed that my right hon. Friend will not agree to put the figure into the Bill, I appreciate the force of this argument, and I think that the point between us is so fine that I would be ill-advised to press the matter further at this stage. Therefore, I shall not move the Amendment that stands in my name.

Mr. Gallacher: rose —

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment in view of the useful discussion that we have had upon it?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Burden): Mr. Gallacher.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. What question is now before the Committee?

The Temporary Chairman: There is a further Amendment. No, I beg the Committee's pardon. The Question is. "That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bing: May I detain the Committee one moment to ask

my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether he has considered the question of bias, in view of the restriction made on the size of the bench. The fewer justices there are, in' the case where it is thought there is bias, the more difficult is the problem. There are a lot of legal qualifications dealing with the question of whether a magistrate has a direct or indirect financial interest in a matter to come before the court, and there are magistrates who have all sorts of bias from temperance to pedestrians or religious bias, which leads people who come before them to doubt whether they will get fair trial before that particular magistrate.
If the learned Attorney-General was here, he would no doubt know the forensic fable to which I will now refer. It is the story of a county court judge who used to determine first, in any case which came before him, whether one of the parties was a builder. If he found that neither was a builder, he decided the case on its merits, and in the other cases gave judgment against the builder. There are people of similar mentality who sometimes, possibly by mistake, get on to a bench of magistrates, and I therefore throw out to the Home Secretary the suggestion that he might consider the possibility, either by rules or by some Amendment of the Bill at a later stage, of providing for something of the same kind as the challenge that is made at courts martial.

Mr. Gage: I do not think the argument of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) holds water, because, if we were to take steps to guard against bias in that way, the natural corollary would be that we should never get any member of a bench who would be completely free from suspicion. We really cannot guard against all these matters. It is true that, in a case of a large bench of justices, there might be one with a bee in his bonnet at one end, but he is usually cancelled out by another justice with precisely the opposite kind of bee in his bonnet at the other end.
We cannot ask the Home Secretary to make provisions against all kinds of matters like that. Justices take the oath to administer justice fairly, and, generally, they do it. At least, they try to do it as well as they are able, and I do not


think that if we were to limit the size of a bench the chance of bias would be any the less. I do not think that would be the case at all, although I think there is a strong case here for limiting justices. We have all known cases such as that the right hon. Gentleman described of far too many justices on the bench. From the point of view of one attending the court, it is always something of an advantage to have a lot of justices, because one can usually say that the greater the number of justices the smaller the sentences are likely to be.
I would not quarrel with the numbers proposed a moment ago, and I think it is a sound idea that the numbers should be left to a departmental committee, which would be able to deal with matters that we cannot discuss, and I should be very content to leave it in the hands of such a committee, without suggesting what limits there should be or making any suggestion in regard to bias.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to make a remark about the conduct of an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. As you know, Mr. Burden, I had the Floor, but he got up to speak and I gave way, because I thought he was going to put a point to me. I never thought that an hon. and learned Member of this House would get down as low as to take advantage of another hon. Member in the way he did.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. May I ask that you, Mr. Burden, should tell the hon. Gentleman that I was raising a point of Order?

The Temporary Chairman: I took it that the hon. and learned Gentleman was raising his point of Order with me, and if the hon. Member will recollect I was just coming into the Chair. I had not quite realised what was the position regarding the two Amendments. I hope he will put any blame on me and not on the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller).

Mr. Gallacher: The Temporary Chairman called me before the hon. and learned Gentleman withdrew his Amendment.
I want to get down to the question of this Clause. I want to ask the Home Secretary, when he is providing for suffi-

cient justices in order to ensure that at any particular time there will be an adequate bench of justices, from where he expects them to come? From which particular section of the community are these justices, who are going to be waiting about, to come? I am quite sure that the Home Secretary has never given sufficient consideration to the character of justices who are to be there ready, in order to fill up the bench., If a stated number was arranged for each occasion, an organised method could be developed for having certain selected justices there to ensure that there was proper representation on the bench, in view of the different types of cases coming before it. For instance, 15 working-class families have been evicted in Buxton, and seven fathers of families have been put into gaol.

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will really come back to the Clause because that incident has no relation to it whatever.

Mr. Gallacher: I am coming to that. These men, maybe, will come up before the quarter sessions; courts of justices are going to deal with these men. If they appear before justices who are particularly concerned about property—and many of them are—there will be no chance whatever for these men. On the other hand, if the justices were drawn from the factories or were associated with working-class life and had a real understanding of the difficulty in getting homes at the present time, then they would constitute a bench that could appreciate the problem facing these men, and there would be no possibility of their being sentenced. Indeed, there might be a possibility of their getting a home.
I would like to see in this Clause something more definite about the character of the organisation that is going to be created so as to ensure that benches of justices will be biased in the proper direction. It is quite impossible for a Socialist to be unbiased as it is for a Tory to be unbiased. Nobody is unbiased. We do not want to play with fantasies. There is no such thing as an unbiased man. We want to get on the bench men who are biased in the right direction, and who will see to it that decent workers are treated properly and that robber landlords receive the treatment they deserve.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that if the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) were at any remote stage in the future to fill the office of Home Secretary the benches of magistrates in those days would be full of what he would regard as an appropriate bias. But I rise on this Motion solely for the purpose of congratulating the Home Secretary upon the appearance of subsection (6) of this Clause and of expressing the hope that before this House has entirely finished with this Bill there may be many other opportunities in respect of many other Clauses of expressing the same congratulations.

Mr. Ede: This Bill has the support of all quarters of the House; in fact, it has so much support that unless we are very careful it will be smothered by it. Therefore, I am quite sure that hon. Members will aquit me of discourtesy if I do not reply at great length to the remarks made on this Motion. I assure the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) that I was prepared to discuss all the cases in which something analogous to subsection (6) should appear in the Bill. That offer still remains open, and I have no doubt that we shall reach a satisfactory arrangement on the matter.
With regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) said about a person appointed to the bench displaying the kind of bias he suggested, I would say that the thing to do is to ask the Lord Chancellor to remove that person. That is what ought to be done.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: He could be objected to at the time.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Yes, he could be objected to at the time. I have heard counsel object to some colleagues of mine who were sitting beside me. I once left the bench because I thought there might be some bias when a defendant asked whether he was going to be judged by me. I think that after the result was announced he rather wished that I had been on the bench.
I think I ought to say a word or two about what was said by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) because in these matters it will be the duty of those

who draw up the rota, or whatever the arrangement may be, for selecting magistrates, to see that an appropriate and careful selection is made so as to get as representative a bench as possible. I speak as one who has had a good deal of experience of sitting with magistrates, and it would not surprise me if the hon. Member for West Fife sometimes found that the bench which he suggested he would like to have deal with a particular case would be harsher than the one which would normally try it.
I believe that when men sit on the bench they do endeavour within the limitations that human nature imposes upon all of us to listen to the evidence and to reach a decision on the evidence and on the law as explained to them by the clerk. I do not want a feeling to get abroad that on certain occasions it is possible to pack a bench, even by the voluntary attendance of magistrates or by the way in which the selection is made. I am quite certain that the rules under this Clause will throw on the individual benches the responsibility of seeing that the benches required from time to time will be so constituted as to command the confidence of the people they exist to serve.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15. —(RULE COMMITTEE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 11, line 36, to leave out the second "and," and to insert "or."
This is a purely drafting Amendment. The word "and" is a mistake in the present text, and I do not think that the grammatical correction will require any explanation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16. —(ESTABLISHMENT OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS COMMITTEES.)

Mr. Marlowe: I beg to move, in page 13, line 32, to leave out "seventy-five," and to insert "fifty."
I will not detain the Committee for more than a minute or two on this matter because I touched upon it when we were


discussing Clause 10, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that the object of this Amendment is to permit a magistrates' courts committee for a non-county borough having a population of 50,000. As I said earlier when discussing the matter, I would equally be content with 60,000. My point is in relation to the restriction with regard to the commission of the peace for non-county boroughs. The original figure of 50,000 for the retention of the commission has now been reduced to 35,000, and I would be content if the same ratio were observed with regard to magistrates' courts committees, that they should be reduced from 75,000 to 65,000.
The right hon. Gentleman earlier on said, not without justification, that I was interested in the Borough of Hove. On that occasion, I was not, but on this, I am. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows by heart, the population of that non-county borough is in the region of 69,000, and it is in the difficult position of being the only non-county borough in Sussex. Eastbourne and Hastings, with much smaller populations, are county boroughs and, therefore, are not affected by this matter.
I want the figure reduced to 60,000 for the purpose of magistrates' courts committees. That would leave a very satisfactory position because this non-county borough would then have its magistrates' courts committee along with its commission of the peace. It already has its commission of the peace, and that is safeguarded by the number which is now accepted as the desirable standard for a commission of the peace. But unless the figure is reduced to 60,000 the two will be divided; the borough will keep its commission of the peace but will have no magistrates' courts committee.
I think this is a standard which should be accepted. The area over which the court administers justice has a population of 85,000, and if the figure for the magistrates' courts committee were retained at 60,000 the position would be safeguarded. Hove is in a peculiar position in some respects. For the purpose of the administration of justice it also takes in the urban districts of Portslade and two or three rural areas inland. In fact, it administers justice for an area of 85,000. The curious thing is

that although the area covered has a population of 85,000, it would not be saved for the purpose of the magistrates' courts committee by the figure of 75,000, because the basic figure for the purpose of considering the population is the figure of the borough itself. The fact that the jurisdiction extends outside the borough and brings the population of the area in which justice is administered up to 85,000 is of no avail. The test is the population of the borough.
It seems to me that as there has been a reduction of some 15,000 in the original standard adopted for the commission of the peace, there would be nothing illogical in reducing the magistrates' courts committee standard also by the same amount. That would produce a satisfactory position. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that 60,000 is a substantial population and that a borough having such a substantial population ought to be considered worthy of having its own magistrates' courts committee. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look with sympathy on this appeal.

Mr. Ede: I think if Hove stood by itself, it would be easier to meet this Amendment than by proceeding on the basis of population because, in my view, Hove is on the wrong side of Brighton to be in East Sussex. I am quite sure that the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) will understand what I mean. The great County Borough of Brighton spreads out to the east, and well up beyond that on the north of the boundaries of Hove. There are of course, other places in the country which would be brought in if I accepted the Amendment either for 50,000 or 60,000. It is essential that these places should be within the scope of the magistrates' courts committee for the county so that the county can be properly divided into petty sessional divisions by the magistrates' courts committee.
Another point is that we regard 75,000 as about the population that justifies a full-time clerk. If the figure was reduced to 50,000 or 60,000 there might be places where there would be a magistrates' courts committee with a population insufficient to justify the employment of a full-time clerk, which I regard as one of the more desirable reforms that we shall effect by this Bill.
However, I will have a look at this point to see if there is some way in which I can meet the peculiar position of Hove. I will bear in mind the fact that there is this larger population totalling 85,000 which is, in fact, served, and which from the mere geography of the matter probably ought to be served, by the court at Hove.

Mr. Marlowe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his undertaking. I should like to make this one further point. Hove has its own full-time justices' clerk. That, I think, adds weight to the argument. Having regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Chetwynd: I should like my right hon. Friend, if he can, to clear up a point which has been worrying my local authority concerning the figure of 75,000. My town clerk has written to me stating that his interpretation of this Clause in its present form is that the population of a non-county borough at the date on which a magistrates' courts committee is first formed will determine once and for all whether a borough is entitled to have a separate committee. The population of the area with which I am concerned is now 73,000. Does that mean that if we attain 75,000 we are ruled out for ever from having a magistrates' courts committee, or that if we reach 75,000 at some time, say in a year or two which we are likely to do, we are entitled to have a magistrates' courts committee set up?

Mr. Ede: I think it depends on what the size of the borough is today. If a subsequent increase takes place it will not entitled the borough by itself to have a separate magistrates' courts committee.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would my right hon. Friend have a look at the position with reference to those towns the populations of which are nearly 75,000, and which are likely to attain that figure shortly?

Mr. Ede: If they attain the figure of 75,000 they can make an application to have their case considered, and it will be considered from the point of view of the

needs of the administration of justice in the whole population of the area.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17. —(PROVISION OF COURSES OF INSTRUCTION.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Basil Nield: I am certain that in all parts of the Committee this Clause will be welcomed as one providing machinery whereby courses of instruction may be available to justices of the peace. As I said in the Second Reading Debate, I hope that that will not mean that justices will endeavour to be amateur lawyers rather than good judges of fact. On the other hand, there are a number of technical matters with which magistrates are required to deal, and it is with reference to one of those matters that I desire to say a few words.
In the last few months, with the assistance of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and indeed the right hon. Gentleman himself, I have been struggling with the preparation and launching of a Bill to deal with the adoption of children. That is an important technical problem involving the interests of three parties—the child, the parent and the adopter—and it is a problem which may have to be dealt with by justices. Yesterday I addressed a meeting which included representatives of a number of bodies and societies dealing with this very human problem. They were rather concerned that there was no real uniformity in the way in which this very important problem was dealt with up and down the country My sole object in rising tonight is to say that I hope this particular matter may perhaps be one of the many questions upon which some decision may be forthcoming.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Bing: I should like to say just a few words on this subject. I hope that when the Home Secretary is considering the types of courses of instruction, he will bear in mind his own suggestion and see that it is quite possible for magistrates, as part of their courses, to attend the assizes and quarter


sessions, where there are professional chairmen. Secondly, those people who are going to sentence others to prison should at least visit the prisons occasionally to see what takes place there. Thirdly, the most important thing in this connection is for them to know how other people live, how other classes live. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman is considering the types of courses of instruction, I hope he will remember sociology and the wider aspects of the matter and not deal only with purely legal matters.

Mr. Ede: One must bear in mind that as a rule magistrates are fairly busy people who, before their appointment to the bench, have acquired some knowledge of the ways of the world and some acquaintance with the way in which members of the community live. I do not want it to be thought that these courses are to be so elaborate and so technical that they will impose upon busy people an almost insufferable burden. It is also desirable that no effort shall be made to turn lay magistrates into people who can afford to disregard the legal advice of a qualified clerk. It may be that through the courses of instruction some magistrates would gain sufficient courage to deal with clerks who attempt to go beyond their proper province. I would say that is not an unnecessary part of the training for magistrates in some courts. I hope that these courses will enable a magistrate to understand what are his duties while he is sitting in court and when people come to him with documents and other things for him to sign, so that he will be fully competent to discharge the duties of his office.
The courses will be arranged by the Magistrates' Association, and it is not to be thought that the Government will lay down some kind of governmental view of what magistrates ought to be, what they ought to do and what they ought to know. I am quite sure that it would be fatal to the confidence of the country in the courts if it were thought that we are now going to embark on telling magistrates how the Government would like them to conduct their courts and to construe the law. I think this is a very desirable addition to the law and I believe that under the guidance of the Magistrates' Association a good deal of useful infor-

mation will be conveyed to magistrates and that they will be better fitted to discharge their office.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19. —(APPOINTMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF JUSTICES' CLERKS.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 17, line 19, to leave out from "committee," to the end of line 20, and to insert:
and to a county borough or county not divided into petty sessional divisions which is included in a joint committee area, as if it were a petty sessional division of a county.

Mr. Marlowe: On a point of Order. Do I gather, Mr. Burden, that you have not selected my Amendment in page 16, line 11, at end, insert:
and may appoint a deputy-clerk to act in the absence of the justices' clerk. A magistrates' courts committee may authorise such deputy-clerk when acting in the absence of the justices* clerk, to perform any of the functions and discharge any of the duties normally performed or discharged by the justices' clerk.

The Temporary Chairman: It has not not been selected.

Mr. Ede: The Amendment which I am moving is a drafting Amendment. By subsection (9) a magistrates' courts committee is required to consult
the magistrates for any petty sessional division of a county on the appointment or removal of a justices' clerk for the division,
and the Secretary of State is required, before approving the appointment or removal, to
consider any representations made to him by the magistrates for the division,
and also, before approving removal,
any representations made to him by the clerk.
As the Clause stands there is no similar provision where the committee is for a joint area and the appointment or removal of a justices' clerk of the county is in question. The Amendment makes the necessary provision to remedy this and also makes similar provision where one of the components of the joint committee area is a county not divided into petty sessional divisions.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 17, line 34, to leave out "justices' clerks," and to insert "clerks to licensing justices."
This, together with the next Amendment, is a drafting Amendment. In the first Amendment there is a nice refinement in the use of the English language. I hope the Committee will approve of these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 36, leave out "justices'."—[Mr. Ede.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Marlowe: I shall detain the Committee for only a short time on this Clause. I had on the Paper an Amendment which was not selected, but as this Clause deals generally with the question of the appointment of a justices' clerk by the magistrates' courts committee, I should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might consider something in the nature of the Amendment which I had on the Order Paper. It was intended entirely to be helpful.
A case was brought to my notice recently from the North of England. A justices' clerk was ill—I think he was in hospital—and some documents had to be signed within a time limit. I think there was a statutory obligation to provide certain figures and the justices' clerk, being in hospital, was unable to make the return. Some request was sent from the Home Office for the clerk to make the return which was required of him. His assistant signed the return with his name, for and on behalf of the justices' clerk in question, in order to make the return within the time limit. The Home Office sent it back to him saying that it was not good enough and that it must be signed by the justices' clerk. As the justices' clerk was still quite incapable of signing the document, being in hospital, the assistant clerk simply signed the justices' clerk's name, and I have no doubt that all went quite happily after that.
But it is not a very satisfactory position, and my Amendment tried to ensure that such a situation would not arise. It is one which can easily arise where a justices' clerk is absent for some good reason—illness, or his annual holiday, or something of that sort. Particularly where

there are statutory functions to be performed, it seems desirable that there should be somebody on such an occasion qualified and permitted by law to take his place. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this matter, and, if he thinks it a helpful suggestion, that he will introduce the provision at some other time.

Mr. Ede: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising this issue. If he will let me have particulars of the case he gave to us, I will have it looked into.

Mr. Nield: This is an offence.

Mr. Ede: Well, I will treat it as having been shown to me in confidence. It may enable me to guard against causing somebody else to commit an offence. However, I am advised that really this provision is not necessary, and I hope that the magistrates' courts committees will see there is a properly appointed person so that we can deal with the kind of difficulty which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned. After all, if they are in a position to deal with the organisation of counties as a whole, it ought not to be impossible for them to see that certain persons are, for this kind of purpose, the locally authorised deputies of the clerks to the magistrates.

Mr. Marlowe: I believe that the difficulty arises from the fact that Statutes require something to be done by a magistrates' clerk and do not permit it to be done by somebody else. That is where the difficulty arises.

Mr. Ede: I do not want to prolong this discussion, but I am advised that Section 48 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, provides that a person who acts as a clerk to a court of summary jurisdiction shall be deemed for the purposes of that Act to be a deputy of the salaried clerk, and can report to the salaried clerk what goes on in the absence of the salaried clerk. However, I will have the position very carefully examined. I am advised that, generally speaking, it ought to be possible under the new arrangements.

Mr. Bing: I want to say a word here on the desirability of what I think this Bill is helping to achieve. I hope my right hon. Friend will do all he can to


see that, as far as possible, whole-time clerks are appointed. One of the greatest disadvantages of the magisterial system has been the conflict of loyalties that very often the magistrates' clerks feel. Let me give one example which was quoted as recently as 1946 at a conference of the Haldane Society about magistrates' clerks. In that case there was a clerk who was a solicitor having a large practice in a country town. He was clerk to the magistrates of the local court and—this is now, of course, impossible—of the adjoining district. He was the coroner; he was clerk to the district council; the chairman of the court of referees; the food executive officer; assistant registrar of the county court; secretary to the local Conservative Association; and, until a month before, also commanding officer of the local Home Guard.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: A very useful chap.

Mr. Bing: It was scarcely possible for anyone appearing at the court not to have come before him in some capacity of his at some time or another. Very often there is a feeling that the clerk to a court really dominates the court. In so far as we can appoint whole-time clerks we shall end this conflict of interests which the magistrates' clerks may now feel, and we should take all the steps we can to that end. It is one of the great reasons for welcoming this Bill that, by increasing the sizes of the areas, we shall make that a practical proposition.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20. —(QUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES' CLERK.)

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Corlett.

Mr. Marlowe: On a point of Order.

The Temporary Chairman: I have not selected the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, in page 17, line 46, after "he," to insert:
has had reasonable practical experience in any of the capacities mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section, or.
However, it is suggested that there should be a general Debate on this and other proposed Amendments on this particular Clause.

Mr. Marlowe: I am much obliged, Mr. Burden. That will be satisfactory.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Corlett: I beg to move, in page 18, line 19, to leave out paragraph (b), and to insert:
'"(6) if he has served for not less than ten years as assistant to any such clerk and in the opinion of the magistrates' courts committee and of the Secretary of State there are special circumstances making the appointment a proper one.
It will be noticed that the Amendment I am moving was Clause 15 of the original Bill when it was introduced in another place. So the Amendment is really drafted by the Secretary of State. It is the Department's baby, and I am rather puzzled as to why they have abandoned it. It seems reasonable to assume that the Department drafted that particular Clause with full knowledge of the realities of the situation and after very careful consideration. They must have known that only 32 out of the 90 full-time justices' clerks were professionally-qualified men, and they must have given very serious consideration to that position, because it is so remarkable. I think they must have wondered and must have investigated why it was that there was only 32 professionally-qualified men.
I should imagine that the explanations are simple. First, that possibly professionally-qualified men are not attracted to that particular type of post. I think it is quite reasonable to say that. I think the second, and perhaps even more important, reason would be that fully-qualified men—or many who did apply—were not considered adequately qualified by the magistrates who were making the appointments. If that were the position—and I am perfectly certain that the Department must have made themselves conversant with the position—I can quite understand their deciding to put down Clause 15 in the original Bill, because they would be satisfied it was impossible to get a sufficient number of professionally-qualified men to fill these posts.
They must also have known and must have inquired very carefully into, the position of the 58 statutorily qualified men who were acting as justices' clerks in the very big cities where they were being employed, and I am perfectly satisfied that if they made careful inquiries, as I am sure they did, they must have been informed that those men were completely


capable and competent, and giving entirely satisfactory service to those who were employing them. Speaking as a magistrate, I should be very much amazed indeed if any magistrates were found who would say otherwise.
So they would have had all that evidence before them; and, having that evidence before them, they drafted the original Clause 15. If they had had evidence to the contrary, then they would have been provided with a golden opportunity for deciding that these men should not be eligible, and would presumably have drafted the present Clause 20. But they did not draft Clause 20 when they had all this evidence before them as to the positive qualifications of these men, but decided that these men should be eligible for these posts.
They also had every opportunity—and I do not doubt that they took it—for taking all the evidence against these men. They would consider all the evidence given before the Roche Committee, evidence which, we suppose, suggested that these statutorily qualified men should not be appointed to these posts. They would consider that evidence. They would consider very carefully all the recommendations of the Roche Committee that these men should not be so appointed. Then, having considered that evidence, as I am sure they carefully and thoroughly did, they still decided that these men should be eligible, and they drafted their Clause 15. Then, I assume, they would have had before them the representations of the Law Society, who would give evidence, probably in writing and orally, claiming that these men should not be eligible for these posts. And yet, having considered that evidence very carefully, they still drafted Clause 15 in their original Bill, which meant they were quite satisfied, after full consideration, that these men should be reckoned as eligible. So I am very puzzled, as, I think most magistrates are, as to why there should be a complete change from Clause 15 in the original Bill to this Clause 20, which is excluding these men from this employment.
On the Second Reading I sat throughout the Debate, I was privileged to take part in it, I listened to everybody who spoke, and I read the Debate carefully afterwards; I also read the report of the Debates in another place; and, quite

frankly, I can find no evidence whatever that was produced which would justify the exclusion of these men.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Petersfield (General Sir G. Jeffreys) suggested that magistrates and the public might not have full confidence in unqualified men. But these are qualified men. They are statutorily qualified, and I think it was a completely wrong term for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to use. If he feared that magistrates and the public might not have full confidence I must point out that there has been every opportunity for magistrates and the public to say they lacked confidence in these men; and yet I know of no evidence that anybody has put forward to that effect, and magistrates in the largest cities who have knowledge of the work of these men would pot hesitate, I am sure, to say that they do not lack confidence in them. Perhaps, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had evidence, which he was not prepared to reveal to the the House. The Attorney-General said of the 58 non-professional clerks that
Some are good, some not so good."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 905.]
After all, we might use the same phrase about Attorneys-General—though I do not think any of us would place in either of those categories the present Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General: In neither of them?

Mr. Corlelt: After the remarkable exhibition we had today at Question time I think we should put him in the "very good" or "excellent" class. I should have been very happy indeed had he found it possible to place some of these 58 in the "very good" or "excellent" class, because I am quite certain that some of them deserve to be placed there. However, he did very generously add that some of the best and most experienced of magistrates clerks had been unqualified men. We are very grateful for that. But having said that, he then went on to state the real reason for Clause 20, and said:
the functions of the magistrates' courts are now becoming much more complex. Modern statutes and regulations are more technical and difficult to administer than they used to be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 905.]


Well, we all accept that, but surely it cuts both ways. If modern legislation is becoming so difficult and technical, it is becoming equally so for professionally-qualified men in private practice, and the more difficult they find this legislation to be the less time will they have to prepare themselves for the equally difficult legislation in magistrates' courts. I accept that it will be more difficult, but I cannot see how that will make it more possible for the ordinary qualified man to leave his private practice and devote himself to studying the equally difficult and technical legislation that we have to administer in magistrates' courts.
The Attorney-General then referred to the need that clerks should be qualified people. I must demur at that. I say again that these people are fully qualified; they are statutorily qualified. When the Attorney-General says that they must be qualified, I suppose what he really means is that they should be professionally qualified. I do not think all magistrates will accept that for a moment. I think most of us would say that many of these statutorily qualified clerks are infinitely better qualified than a merely professionally-qualified man. I do not think any magistrate will demur at that, because the ordinary magistrates' clerk and assistant clerk has had a wealth of experience in the work of the court; in that specialised and narrow field he is supremely capable and competent—infinitely more competent and capable than any ordinary practising solicitor who has had no experience whatever in that particular field. Therefore, on the merits of the case alone I urge my Amendment. I urge that the statutorily qualified man has as much right to consideration for these posts as the merely professionally-qualified man.
But I urge my Amendment also on the ground that in a few years' time this Clause will be impracticable. We well remember that the Lord Chancellor gave a special warning about that possibility. If we are to be limited in our recruitment to solicitors who are merely professionally-qualified men, we shall not have nearly sufficient capable recruits to administer this service, because not only will we be limited to solicitors, but we will be limited to an even narrower field; we will be limited to solicitors who

must be between the ages of 30 and 50. Indeed, we are limited still further, in that they must have served apprenticeships to magistrates' clerks in magistrates' courts. Well, that limits the field enormously, and I cannot see any possibility of recruiting sufficient capable men in the future from that narrow field. I am afraid that if we find ourselves in that position we will feel compelled to recruit justices' clerks from solicitors who are in ordinary practice, and who will have very few real qualifications for assisting in a magistrates' court. Recruitment from that narrow field would be disastrous to the work of magistrates' courts.
At the moment we have a large and admirable field of choice. We have the professionally-qualified man, and we have this large field of the statutorily qualified man—an admirable field from which to make a choice. I am surprised that we have such a large field on the statutory side, because the service is completely unattractive. The conditions of service in regard to tenure, salary, sick pay regulations and office accommodation do not compare at all favourably with ordinary local government service, and I am very surprised that we have such a good recruiting field.
But, of course, many ambitious young fellows join the service because, in spite of its unattractiveness, they always have the hope that eventually they will become a justices' clerk, and with that open to them they enter the service in good numbers. The result is that places like Birmingham can have eight courts operating simultaneously, perhaps four or five days in the week, and it is thus possible for magistrates to deal adequately with cases. We all know that when we have a long list it is nice to divide it up and say, "We will have two, three or four courts, and we can give more time to the cases," knowing that we shall always have to advise us an experienced, competent clerk who knows what is expected from us. He can advise us in every possible respect, and we go into court quite contentedly, knowing that we can really administer justice.
If Clause 20 is passed, that will very soon not be possible. If we are compelled to take with us into court only a professionally-qualified man, we will find that he simply will not be there; there


will not be sufficient men to do this type of work, and we shall not be able to get through the cases in a day, or even a week. Not only will there not be sufficient professionally-qualified men, but the other field of recruitment will have largely dried up. The profession will have become so unattractive that we shall have the greatest difficulty in securing a satisfactory type of individual to come in. The Home Secretary made that perfectly clear on Second Reading, when he said:
There is no doubt that … this Clause will render the justices' clerks service much less attractive to the right type of man for the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 810.]
That is our whole case. That was the Lord Chancellor's case: that the service will be unattractive if it is to be a blind alley, and if the conditions remain as they are today. Therefore, it seems clear—and I am trying to say this without giving offence—that we are creating a closed shop for the legal profession, and even imperilling the efficiency of magistrates' courts by so doing. I feel that very strongly indeed, and I do not think we have any right to pass a Clause which will do it.
We are doing it with our eyes wide open, too. We have been warned that there is the possibility of a shortage of justices' clerks, and we have had a similar example in the past. We all remember that in 1927 there was set up a Departmental Committee to investigate the possibility of providing a register for ophthalmic opticians. The majority decision of that Departmental Committee was against setting up such a register, because the B.M.A. assured them that they would be able to provide sufficient medical men with ophthalmic qualifications to meet the need. Well, we all know that they have done no such thing. Neither will the Law Society be able, in a few years' time, to provide a sufficient supply of professionally-qualified men for these posts. But in the case of the ophthalmic opticians the alternative supply was not dried up. Very wisely recruitment on a sound basis was continued, so that today we have an alternative supply, with a sufficient number of ophthalmic opticians.
If Clause 20 is passed we shall not have sufficient professionally-qualified men for the magistrates' courts, nor shall

we have an alternative supply, and the courts will suffer. I therefore hope that Clause 20 will not be passed. If it is, we shall be treating very harshly a competent and able body of men who have done their job, and done it well, within that narrow specialised field. They deserve better of us, and we should not sacrifice them merely to make—and again I use the phrase—a closed shop for a profession which cannot possibly deliver the goods.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Wilkes: Does the hon. Gentleman think it is a very satisfactory position when, let us say, two solicitors or two barristers have been arguing a point of law about a new Act, as to where the burden of proof lies or some other aspect of that legislation, that the matter should then be left in the hands of a man entirely unqualified and without training in the law?

Mr. Corlett: That is a common experience. I was presiding over my own bench only on Monday when I was faced with that position. I am perfectly certain that the two solicitors arguing the case were quite prepared to accept the advice of the learned clerk.

Mr. Marlowe: There is a series of Amendments on the Order Paper in my name which have not been selected, and which it may be convenient to discuss at the same time as this Amendment, since their object is very much the same as that of the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has just moved. It really comes to a clear issue of whether we are in favour of clerks with professional qualifications or of continuing the present system of permitting unqualified clerks.
I want to address myself to that problem, making it quite clear at the outset that I support the maintenance of the present system of unqualified clerks. I think that it is necessary to go a little into the genesis of this matter in order to get a clear understanding of it. No one suggests that there has been any wide dissatisfaction with the present system, or that the proposed alteration in the law will give any greater satisfaction. Men with professional qualifications are just as liable to err as those without them, but the position when this


Bill was originally introduced in another place was that professional qualification was not required. That was the position upon which the Government took their stand when they first introduced this Bill.
Subsequently something happened. I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in case he does not know, precisely what it was. It was that the Justices' Clerks Society had their annual conference at Bournemouth, and two noble Lords were invited to attend its annual dinner. The interest of the two noble Lords in this matter was aroused by those present, who had, of course, an interest in the matter, and it was in the nature of what the hon. Member for York (Mr. Corlett) has described as creating a closed shop. Curiously enough, an Amendment was moved in the House of Lords which achieved the result which the Justices' Clerks Society required. It seems to have been a very successful dinner which they had at Bournemouth on that occasion.

Mr. Scollan: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman implying that one can buy a couple of noble Lords for a dinner?

Mr. Marlowe: I am not making any adverse comment. We all know that there is a perfectly legitimate process of lobbying both in another place and in this House. Anyone can put forward an interest which they wish to be represented properly in Debate. I am not making any point about that. I am only trying to get the genesis of this thing and put it in its proper perspective.
The introduction of the original Bill followed the Roche Report, and I think that it is important to remember that the Roche Report, in paragraph 79, advocated the grouping together of commissions of the peace for the purpose of getting whole-time clerks, and it was against that background that any recommendation of the Roche Committee with regard to qualification was made. But that basis has gone, because the Bill does not attempt to adopt that recommendation of the Roche Committee. Therefore, anything further which the Roche Committee had to say about qualification becomes of considerably less value, except—and I will summarise the effect of paragraphs 174 to 177 of the Roche Committee's Report—that what is really

required of a justices' clerk is experience. The report went on to say:
The degree of experience and knowledge cannot be defined by Statute.
I entirely agree, but that is precisely what the Government are trying to do. They are trying to define by Statute the degree of experience and knowledge that can be gained by passing an examination. I cannot accept that as the standard required. It is well to notice what is the examination. A justices' clerk has to give his time to administering criminal law. There are subsidiary offences, but the main part of his duty is administering criminal law, and I suppose that the two main essentials of knowledge required by him are knowledge of the criminal law and knowledge of evidence and procedure.
So far as evidence and procedure are concerned, there is no better school than experience and sitting in court. As to criminal law, which is the branch of the law in which he needs to be most versed, what is suggested by this Bill is not that he should learn criminal law, but that he should go in for an examination requiring him to learn conveyancing, the law of real property, the law of equity and accounts and other subjects required in the solicitors' examination. Of what use is a knowledge of conveyancing equity and real property law going to be to a justices' clerk? How can it be said that once he has passed an examination in conveyancing he becomes better qualified to administer criminal law or to assist the justices in administering it in a criminal court? I suggest that is an utterly false standard in relation to this particular case.
I would say, generally, that it is not always the man who passes examinations who is best at using worldly knowledge to the greatest advantage. It is through the experience that a man gains in court and through his having to deal with witnesses and to handle his bench and look after his daily routine that a man becomes best qualified to discharge the task of a justices' clerk. That will enable him to discharge his task far better than passing a hundred examinations in conveyancing or in any other subject.
To counter that point, some suggestion has been made that the Law Society should facilitate the qualification of solicitors. I cannot see that that is a helpful


suggestion. All that it will do is to bring about a sort of devaluation of the solicitor's status. It is going to make an easier examination for solicitors without any guarantee that they will then use their knowledge for this particular purpose. It is a most unsatisfactory way of trying to arrive at a compromise.
If that procedure is adopted—and one does not know precisely of what it will consist—there would be nothing to prevent a man from taking a simplified solicitors' examination for the purpose of becoming a solicitor's clerk, but it would not be possible to compel him to become a solicitor's clerk, and he could say "I am now qualified" and go off and practise as a solicitor, although in fact he had passed only some kind of simplified solicitors' examination, and read a few books called "How to Become a Solicitor without Tears" or something like that. That is not at all a satisfactory way. It would be most undesirable that the high standard of the solicitors' examination should be debased in any way. It is very necessary to retain the high standard, and we ought not to meet this difficulty by introducing some devaluation of the examination.
Reference has been made to the figures given on Second Reading with regard to the number of qualified and unqualified clerks. I think the figures the Home Secretary gave related to 1938, or to some pre-war year. I have the latest figures, and the present position is that there are 124 whole-time clerks, of whom 73 are solicitors and 51 are not, which means that a little under half are unqualified. If we are to insist upon having a professionally-qualified man for this job, the sort of man we shall get is the man who has qualified and failed to make a success of his profession. That would be most undesirable.
Any really competent solicitor can make a good deal larger income in private practice than any justices' clerk can receive. I believe that the maximum amount received by a justices' clerk does not go beyond £1,500 a year. There may be one or two exceptions, but £1,500 a year would be a pretty good salary for a justices' clerk. It would be a poor solicitor who could not do a great deal better than that in private practice.

Mr. Keenan: Is it not a fact that some justices' clerks also carry on a private practice?

Mr. Marlowe: We are dealing here with whole-time clerks, who cannot carry on a private practice. As I was saying, any competent solicitor will make a much better living and will not be attracted to this vocation.
We must also consider the man who is coming into the profession as an assistant. What are the inducements for him to take up this career? I consider there are none. He will know that if he does not happen to be the kind of man who. can easily pass examinations, if he is a man who finds it difficult to qualify, he can never rise higher than first assistant clerk, with a maximum salary of between £500 and £800. That is not going to attract competent and able young men into this vocation. A man will know that if he comes into the profession as a junior assistant, anxious to learn the job of a justices' clerk, he will have to spend a large part of his time studying to pass his examinations, just at the time when he ought to be in his senior's office or sitting with his senior in the court to learn the job of being a justices' clerk. That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, and it is quite illogical.
There is no reason why a man should have particular qualifications unrelated to his job. We might as well say that a man should not keep a job unless he is a qualified "vet." The profession of justices' clerk is a specialised job calling for knowledge of the world, understanding of human nature and appreciation of the particular problems that arise in the court. These are qualities no man learns from books on conveyancing, equity or the laws relating to real property. The qualities of this profession can be learnt only by experience, and if the Clause is allowed to remain as it stands, that experience will not be gained and the vocation of justices' clerk will be so much the poorer.

8.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I am not sure that I am prepared to agree with the last observation of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe), that the principal qualifications required in a justices' clerk are knowledge of human nature and experience of people. Surely these are the qualifications required in


the magistrates, and when these qualifications are emphasised for this vocation we are giving to the justices' clerk a position of undue influence in the decisions of the magistrates on the merits of the case. That is not the function of the clerk at all. He is not there to advise the magistrates as to his views on the merits of the case because of his experience of human nature. His position is to remain silent while the magistrates are discussing broad problems and questions of that kind, and to advise them on technical questions of law, on which he is expected to have a specialised knowledge.
The justices' clerk is not the chairman of the bench. He is there as a technical officer to advise on technical matters, if the justices require his assistance. It is really quite wrong, and it puts the justices' clerk in an entirely erroneous position, to say that what he really needs is long experience of people and human nature, and a shrewd common sense on matters of that kind. These are qualities for the justices, not for the clerk. I do not say they are not desirable qualities for anyone to have. Qualified persons, especially lawyers, who are by no means deficient in common sense, having these qualities are all the better for it.
It has been pointed out that the Amendment restores the Bill to the condition in which it was originally introduced in another place, and my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Corlett) is quite entitled to make, as he did make, a good deal of that point. I suppose it is true to say, however, that second thoughts are best. We gave further consideration to this matter, not because of any dinner that had been held by the Justices' Clerks Society, or by the Incorporated Society of Justices' Clerks Assistants, who I dare say did not neglect also to hold a dinner, but because there was a good deal of additional information made available, and after that further consideration we thought the proper course to take, in regard to this difficult and interesting problem of the unqualified clerks, was to deal with it in the way it now appears in the Clause.
The effect of the Clause is that while some, I suppose most, of the more experienced of the existing unqualified clerks will be retained—those who are in the service now and have been in the

service over a certain period of time—the unqualified clerks will, so to speak, be a dying class. When the existing unqualified clerks have served their terms, we shall come to a period when only qualified men will be entitled to appointment.
The effect of the Amendment—and this is the real point of difference between my hon. Friend the Member for York and ourselves—is that he would perpetuate the unqualified clerk. We think that is wrong. The principle which ought to be accepted in this matter is that professional qualification ought to be the ultimate aim. If that is the ultimate aim, we have to have in the Bill some time-limit after which new entrants to the service as assistant justices' clerks will not be eligible for appointment as principal clerks merely by length of service as an assistant unless they have also professional qualifications.

Mr. Scollan: Would this not have a definite tendency to raise both the status and the salary, and make the legal profession draw very much more out of administering law than they do at present?

The Attorney-General: I do not think it would have that effect, but when we are considering the administration of justice and of proper justice between man and man, financial considerations should not be the dominant ones. Salaries will be under the control of the justices' clerks committee and under the supervision of the Secretary of State, and the rate for the job will no doubt be paid. My hon. Friend will agree that this question, which really is a question of importance and principle, ought not to be decided by reference to the salaries that might have to be paid to the clerks employed.

Mr. Scollan: It is an important point.

The Attorney-General: I venture to disagree with my hon. Friend. It is not really an important point in this context. The important point is to decide whether it is desirable in the interests of the administration of justice to have a qualified man. If that is desirable then the bench and the magistrates clerks' committee ought not to refrain from making the appointment even if at the end of the day it involves some additional expense.

Mr. Pannell: Perhaps the magistrates who yesterday were not deemed to be worth £1 a day, might now take a good view of the future valuation of the qualified clerk.

The Attorney-General: Cheap justice very often is bad justice. One ought to have regard to the question of principle not to the incidental result that it might possibly cause some additional expense. We have given a great deal of thought to this, and, of course, one of the main purposes of this Bill is to implement in principle the recommendations of the Roche Committee, which gave very prolonged and very careful consideration to the matter. I have—and I do not suppose the position has changed very much—practised myself a good deal in these courts both in the north and the south of England. It is impossible to under-estimate the growing importance of the magistrates' clerk in the administration of the justices' court.
My hon. Friend the Member for York referred to what I said about unqualified clerks. I do not recede from that or add to it. Some are good; some very good indeed, and under the Clause as it stands these very good clerks, who have had a prolonged period of experience, will be retained. They will be saved. On the other hand, some are not so good. I do not want to say anything further on that aspect of the matter which might seem to cast any general reflection on the unqualified clerks, who undoubtedly discharge their duties to the best of their ability. But as time goes on the work of the clerks in these courts is tending to become not only more varied, but also more difficult and more technical.
The truth is, of course—and I have often adverted to this fact—the law is becoming more and more complex and detailed owing to the methods of law making which we have. We add one statute to another, making minor amendments in the previous one with the result that in the end, in particular fields of law, one may have to look through as many as 40 statutes in order to ascertain what is the law about that particular matter. I have said that is a shocking state of affairs, and I think it is.
It is so also in regard to reported cases. The list of reported cases, to which a

clerk may have to refer, is growing year by year, and year by year it will become necessary for the clerks, if faced by any problem of law, to look at more and more statutes and more and more cases until we are able to go much further than we have been able to go so far in the matter of consolidation of the statute law. And even after the consolidation and codification of the law these difficulties will inevitably go on increasing.
It is entirely unsatisfactory, where there are legal arguments conducted before the magistrates on an increasing scale—some of the modern cases under modern statutes are of great complexity and difficulty, and it is by no means always the case that those are heard before the stipendiary magistrate but are often heard by lay magistrates—which may go on for two days with quotations from many authorities and references to a number of statutes, that at the end of the day a decision may have to be given by an unqualified clerk, who has never previously had his attention drawn to the branch of the law which is under discussion.
I went into an office the other day, and I was shocked to see a book entitled "Law without Lawyers." It seemed to me a most unfortunate publication. In a court of law it is impossible to administer justice in that way. I am quite sure the Roche Committee, if I may say so with the utmost respect, were right when, as a result of their studies, they came to the conclusion that it was undesirable that unqualified clerks should go on. The figures which my hon. Friend gave in regard to the number of unqualified clerks rather suggested that the magistrates are themselves coming to the same conclusion, because I gather that the proportion of qualified clerks is now appreciably higher than the figures that were previously presented to the Committee.
The only other point—and it is a substantial point—that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York was in regard to the difficulty of recruitment. That is an important consideration and one which we have very much in mind. One of the ways in which it is hoped it will be met is by providing that unqualified men who become assistants to clerks will be able to take their articles with the qualified clerks and in the result, during the course of the time that they are acting as assistants and drawing their salaries,


they will be able to study the law and in time gain their qualification and so become able in due course to succeed to the position of a full justices' clerk. That is something new and something which I think will provide a considerable attraction to this service. I do not think it is right to say—

Mr. Edward Porter: How will that be arranged? If a qualified solicitor is appointed, even if the parents of the youth are prepared to pay the annual fee, he has the sole right to decide whether he will teach the boy or give him articles.

8.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I cannot help thinking that that is a matter which the magistrates' courts committee will have very largely in their hands when they appoint their clerk. They will be able to discuss with him the possibility of having his assistants articled to him. I should have thought that it is by no means the case that qualified clerks would refuse to take the assistant into articles or would demand any excessive fee for it. That is a matter which ought to be capable of settlement by adjustment between the qualified clerk and the magistrates' courts committee.

Mr. Marlowe: Surely the question of articles cannot be dealt with where the present clerk is unqualified, for such a clerk cannot take an articled clerk? There is an impressive list of such instances. Practically all the big towns have unqualified clerks. There are Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Hull, Doncaster, Preston, Halifax, Warrington, Macclesfield, Rotherham, Huddersfield, Barrow, Morecambe, Coventry, Salford, Burnley, and a vast number of others with which I will not weary the Committee. No assistant clerk could be articled to the justices' clerk in any of those big towns.

The Attorney-General: It means that for an interim period, but we were looking at the matter from the long-term point of view and I was saying that from a long-term point of view I think the possibility of being articled and at the same time drawing a salary as assistant clerk will be a very strong factor in recruiting new members to this occupation. So far as the interim period is

concerned, we have protected the situation by enabling the existing unqualified clerks with a certain period of service behind them to carry on. By the time that they go—I said that they will be a dying class—the new assistants who have taken their articles with justices' clerks will be coming in. I am by no means of the view that the position is likely to arise where the only candidates for appointment as justices' clerks will be solicitors who have failed. One has to recognise nowadays—whether it is a good or a bad thing there may be a difference of opinion—that a position with the security of tenure that this position will have with a salary and with a pension at the end of the day has great attractions. I think that that kind of appointment coupled with the possibility of taking articles and drawing a salary at the same time is likely in the long run to bring suitable entrants to this very important work.
I hope that I have dealt with the various points which have been raised by my hon. Friends and by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). I assure the Committee that we really have given the most careful thought to this, not allowing ourselves to be influenced too much by the circumstances of the moment but regarding ourselves as planning for the future on a fairly long-term view and convinced that, on that view, it really is important that this officer of the justices who is there to advise them as to the law should be properly qualified in those matters in regard to which he is called upon to advise.

Mr. Proctor: I take it that the intention of the Government is to allow assistant clerks who have practically five years' experience to continue to be eligible for appointment as clerks. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look at Clause 20 wherein it seems that an assistant clerk is allowed to apply but will never get the job because he has to convince the magistrates and the Secretary of State that special circumstances exist? What special circumstances could there be?

The Attorney-General: That leaves it to the discretion of the magistrates and the Secretary of State. I suppose one kind of special circumstances would be


that he was a person possessing not only long experience but demonstrating a particular ability in the discharge of his duties. Another consideration might be a shortage of qualified applicants for the appointment in that area. However, special aptitude would, I think, be a consideration that the magistrates and the Secretary of State could have regard to within the meaning of this Clause.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have all listened to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said upon this difficult question, difficult because we all have considerable sympathy with the unqualified clerks, so many of whom have been doing their jobs extremely well, as we know in the bigger cities. However, my view is that the Attorney-General has come to the right conclusion. We cannot have the position where the tribunal and the court relies for its advice as to the law upon someone who is not qualified in the law. After all, if one goes to a doctor one expects a certain standard of competence. One advantage of this legal qualification is that it ought to ensure, and usually does, a minimum standard. Therefore, it is right to aim at that.
It is interesting to note that the Roche Committee were by no means uncertain in their recommendation on this point. They said:
Our first recommendation must be the legal qualification of the clerk and we have come to the conclusion after careful deliberation, that nothing but a professional qualification will fully meet the circumstances. A clerkship to justices is a public office. It has become an accepted principle in the public service that appointments requiring specialised knowledge—whether it be in engineering, medicine, architecture or law—should be filled by persons who have the appropriate professional qualification which ensures not only a standard of competence, but also the status and discipline of an organised body.
Those words set out the position, and the conclusion to which this Committee should come. Indeed, I do not think we ought to have any hesitation in coming to that conclusion provided—and it is an important proviso—that a sufficient opportunity exists for the unqualified justices' clerk to become qualified. If that exists, if the door is open wide enough to let in the experienced justices' clerk, I shall vote in support of this Amendment with the utmost confidence if it is pressed to a Division.
That is the point to which I have been paying some attention, whether the facilities are sufficient to enable the unqualified clerk to become qualified. In my opinion they are. There is an interval of 10 years, and I understand that at the request of Lord Roche the Law Society in 1939 prepared a scheme for the special examination of justices' clerks to facilitate their entry into the legal profession. In fact, a great number of assistants have already taken advantage of that provision. That is a good thing, and in view of that, and the reaction of the Law Society to the proposal of Lord Roche, one need not fear that the people who want to become qualified will find it impossible to do so.
The question has been raised, to whom can the unqualified assistant of the unqualified clerk be articled? I do not feel that that is really an insurmountable objection. Steps have been taken, I understand, by the Law Society to enable articles to be served to the deputy clerk when he is a solicitor. I am sure that, if necessary, steps can be taken to provide for those exceptional cases. I feel on careful consideration of this difficult problem that the Committee are right to aim at the imposition of a professional status for justices' clerks and I hope, therefore, that the Government will adhere to their decision.

Mr. Norman Smith: The last two speeches to which the Committee have listened prove that we who are sponsoring the Amendment have our opponents well and truly on the run. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) had to fall back, I thought rather pontifically, on the ponderous announcement that, after all, the Roche Committee had recommended what they did recommend, and by implication suggested that the Committee ought to accept that. Not at all. A majority of the Roche Committee were qualified lawyers and, therefore, in their recommendations they were merely acting as judges in their own cause. The greatest weakness, however, of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry, as, indeed, of my right hon. and learned Friend, was that they gave away their whole case by falling back upon this pitiable little bit of a bait, this infinitesimal concession, that, "We will arrange that the only boys who can do the job


shall have facilities for becoming qualified." That gives the whole thing away.
The Attorney-General was in a cleft stick. He had ignored the most potent and devastating argument of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) that if these appointments, which have a full-time salary, are to be reserved for qualified lawyers, then we shall get only the worst of the solicitors—those who cannot do any good in anything else. I know what I am talking about in this, Mr. Bowles, because it so happens that of my father's six children the only one who became a qualified solicitor has in the last 20 or 30 years made more income than the remaining five of us put together have done. It is perfectly obvious that full-time appointments as justices' clerks at a salary—I apologise for repeating the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton, but the Attorney-General ignored that argument, which was devastating; that is why I repeat it—will not and cannot attract men of the calibre of that particular member of the Smith family who happens to be a solicitor.
Another argument which was advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Corlett), in a very cogent and, I thought, wholly admirable speech, was completely ignored by the Attorney-General. It was this: my hon. Friend referred to simultaneous courts. In my constituency of Nottingham there are two courts sitting each day. One is taken by the clerk and the other by his chief assistant, who is. personally known to me. It has sometimes happened that the clerk, being only human, has fallen ill, and the chief assistant has carried on for eight or nine weeks. If he can do that without a chief assistant, what is the use of arguing that he is not competent to fulfil the office of clerk? Indeed, the Attorney-General did not argue any such thing. He admitted that these assistants were the people who knew the job best and could do it best.
8.45 p.m.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, "We have given much thought to this." But what was the use of his telling the Committee that, when earlier he had said that the Government had been moved by second thoughts? I should like

to know from my right hon. and learned Friend if, when he said that much thought had been given to this, the "much thought" had been given originally in drafting the Bill, as it first left the draftsmen's office, or after the dinner to which the hon. and learned Member for Brighton referred.
To me, who am not a solicitor, or lawyer, and never go to courts, except occasionally in the capacity of defendant, the whole thing appears—as it must appear to hon. Members of the Committee in the light of the pontifical utterance of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry about the Roche Committee laying down the law on Mount Sinai or somewhere else—to me the whole thing looks like a rather human, but slightly sordid attempt by the Law Society to get a closed shop.
Why is it that these solicitors want to take away this little plum from a very worthy section of the community, these assistants? They are not numerous, I know; and socially, I suppose, they are a little obscure. They do not command battalions of votes, but they are respectable people in the literal meaning of that much misused adjective, in that by their work they have earned the respect of the community and they have been doing it over many years before I was alive. It was a Conservative Government, the Earl of Beaconsfield's last Administration, which put them on a statutory basis, but they had been doing the work before that.
I have some feeling in this case because it used to be said of my father, who was a solicitor's managing clerk, that he was the brains of the firm. I know that within a year of his demise the firm amalgamated with a rival firm of solicitors in the same street, and I argue in that case post hoc, ergo propter hoc. If this Clause is allowed to stand as it is, what will happen is that the highest posts the magisterial service can offer to men who have given to that service their youth and middle age will be quite subordinate posts. The Attorney-General betrayed the most painful awareness that, as a result, we are not going to attract the right type of young people into this service.
I do not know if the Home Secretary is to reply to this discussion, but, as he told the Committee yesterday, he has a Nonconformist conscience. The whole


thing suggests to me the First Book of Kings, in which there was a tragedy, and that tragedy is being re-enacted here with the justice's clerk in the rôle of Naboth, the Law Society in the rô1e of Ahab and, I am rather afraid, the Home Secretary in the rôle of Jezebel. I ask the Committee to stand firm against the Government in this. We do not want to divide the Committee, but I ask them to stand firm.
My interest arose in this manner: three or four of these assistants came to me in Nottingham. Not one voted in my constituency and what their political allegiance is, or was, I do not know—I should imagine it was certainly not Labour. They satisfied me, first, that they had a good case, and, secondly, that they were politically helpless. I think that here the House of Commons in this Committee can rise to its best tradition. Let us show by what we do now that we are motivated by other considerations than big battalions of votes, and do justice to these forgotten men

Miss Colman: I feel that the Attorney-General did not reply tonight to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Corlett) any more than he did when he spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill, except with regard to the possible shortage of the supply of clerks. During the Second Reading Debate, the Home Secretary appeared to me, reading his speech, to be doubtful about the wisdom and practicability of the Clause, and I cannot see that the reply of the Attorney-General tonight has proved that the Clause is either wise, or practicable.
In the Second Reading Debate the Home Secretary referred to the fact that the Clause would render the justices' clerks service much less attractive to the right type of man for the future. He went on:
On the other hand, there must be balanced against this consideration the positive recommendation of the Roche Committee that eventually these appointments should be limited to professionally qualified men, … 
He then said of the Clause as it now stands in the Bill that it:
strikes a fair balance between these considerations. … 
It does not; it means that no one who has become an assistant since 1945 has any hope of being promoted to the posi-

tion of clerk unless he qualifies as a solicitor. That is perfectly clear.
That raises the question of the cost of qualification as a solicitor. I am not now speaking of assistant clerks who become clerks and who are articled to clerks but about the young man or woman who chooses the law as a profession and enters it from school. I am informed the normal cost of qualification as a solicitor includes an outlay of £100 to £400 for the premium, examination fees, etc., and on top of that he or she has to live for four to six years either on no pay at all or on a very small salary. That means that the cost is prohibitive in the case of sons and daughters of people without large incomes. Thus this Clause as it stands closes the profession of clerk to anybody who is not able to bear the cost of qualifying as a solicitor unless he had become assistant to a justices' clerk before 1945.
The problem of supply was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York. The Attorney-General referred to it but he did not seem to me really to deal with it. The Home Secretary referred to that aspect in his Second Reading speech, when he said:
There is, therefore, a serious risk that if a requirement of professional qualification were universally applied upon the Bill coming into force it would not be possible to fill all the vacancies for whole-time clerks which may arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 810–811.]
I believe that that danger remains, that the Clause does not avoid it, because the source of recruitment for clerks will be limited to solicitors, who may still be unwilling to become clerks even though they have become qualified by being articled to clerks as assistants, and to the pre-1945 assistants who are considered to be eligible. The number of those is not large, so that it does not appear to me, and I am sure that it does not appear to my hon. Friends, that this very real problem of a shortage of the supply of clerks if this Clause is passed has been dealt with.
In addition, one has to recognise the real danger of a shortage of assistant clerks, because, as the Home Secretary said, the occupation will become much less attractive. The only other point I wish to make is that in the making of a good clerk experience is, as has already been


said, of great importance. Many solicitors have not that experience. They may know the law, but they have not had experience of a court. This Amendment, if accepted, would provide an adequate safeguard against appointing the wrong person. The Government have already had first and second thoughts on this matter and I would ask them to have third thoughts, possibly on Report stage, and to accept the Amendment which my hon. Friends and I have put down.

The Attorney-General: We will, of course, give further consideration to this matter in the light of the strong views expressed by those hon. Members who have spoken on the Amendment. In saying that I must not be taken as holding out any promise that we shall be able on further consideration to give way. I do not want to mislead my hon. Friends into withdrawing their Amendment now in the hope that we have given any kind of definite undertaking about this matter. I am not in a position to give an undertaking about it, and we have attached great importance to this principle.
I thought I had dealt with the suggestion which was made that the effect of this provision in the Bill, if we pass it as it now stands, would result in only those who have failed in practice as solicitors seeking appointments as justices' clerks. I do not think that is true at all. I do not think that experience in other occupations where a similar kind of problem has arisen has shown that to be the case. In many walks of life, in commerce, in the Civil Service, in banking, solicitors are employed as legal advisers. I have had a lot to do with them and I should be very far from thinking that they are the failures of their profession.
Some people, for reasons which appear good to them, may prefer the comparative security of the more placid life of a salaried and pensioned, but important officer of justice to all the risks of the hurly-burly of competitive professional practice. It is by no means true to say that the people who prefer that other course are the failures in their profession. Very often they make their decision at an early stage. They think, perhaps for family or other reasons, that they would prefer that kind of occupation to going into the competitive practice in their pro-

fession. I am quite sure it would be wholly wrong to say of the hundreds, I suppose thousands, of solicitors who occupy salaried appointments that they are failures in the legal profession. That really is completely untrue.
It was said, quite truly, that unqualified clerks do sit, and will continue to sit and take courts in those towns in which more than one court is sitting at the same time. In Liverpool, and in Manchester—in both of which places I had a lot of experience—that was the case. But what is done in those circumstances so far as my experience goes, is that by consultation between the stipendiary magistrates, whom one generally finds in these large provincial centres, and the qualified clerk, arrangements were made to ensure that cases likely to involve legal problems were taken either by the stipendiary, sitting with an unqualified clerk, or by the lay justices, sitting with a qualified clerk. A really difficult case, by which I mean a case involving points of law, is taken in a court where there is somebody with legal qualifications.
9.0 p.m.
I admit it sometimes happens that the qualified clerk is away ill and the unqualified clerk has to sit and take the court. That may happen in the best ordered courts, but that does not prove that the system works completely satisfactorily. We think that is an undesirable situation to arise and that we ought to minimise it as far as may be. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Colman) raised the question of the eligibility of those who have joined the service since 1945, expecting perhaps that they would be entitled in the course of time to become appointed as full justices' clerks, who will under the Clause as at present drafted not be able to get the 10 years' qualifying service by 1st January, 1945.
I will undertake—and I hope that this will be a concession which will at least meet the views of some members of the Committee—to consider putting down an Amendment on Report stage so as to take account of war service on the part of those who joined this service as assistant clerks in 1945, or to extend the date by a year or perhaps two years so as to bring in a few more of the present assistant clerks. That, no doubt, will assist us the better to get over the


interim period before we get a new flow of recruits from those who have been able to take their articles whilst acting as assistant clerks.
What I venture to think that in the end this Clause will do—and this is the long-term purpose of it—is to ensure very largely the advantages both of experience and of qualification, because the bulk of the recruits, I believe, will come from those who have gained experience as assistant clerks and have taken their articles with the qualified clerk to the justices whom they have been assisting. I can assure the Committee that we shall do all we possibly can to facilitate the making of arrangements whereby those who enter the service of justices' clerks are able to take their articles as cheaply as may be and become qualified whilst they are serving in the capacity of assistant. I hope that the Committee will feel that they may now adopt the Clause as it stands and that my hon. Friends will be prepared to withdraw their Amendment.

Miss Colman: I want to ask my right hon. and learned Friend a question. He said that the main source of supply of clerks will be from the assistant clerks who are articled to clerks and who will thus become qualified, but he did not meet the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) that many clerks are now not qualified and, therefore, assistant clerks cannot be articled to them. That means the source of supply is very much more limited than he suggested.

The Attorney-General: That is true only in a limited number of towns. That situation is a temporary one. Year by year the number of cases in which there is an unqualified clerk with no opportunity in that court of being articled to a qualified man will be diminished. The unqualified clerk is inevitably, under this Bill, a dying class. As each one goes, a qualified clerk will be appointed in his place and assistants will then have the opportunity of qualification. But it often happens in these large areas where the justices' clerk may be an unqualified man, that some of the assistants—the deputy-clerks, for instance—have already qualified and in that case unqualified assistants will be able to take their articles with them.
I am prepared to cover this interim period as far as maybe—and the problem that the hon. Member for Tynemouth raised is an interim problem only; eventually it will disappear completely—by considering, as I have promised to do, an Amendment extending the period. I said I would consider one or two years. I do not want to make this a Dutch auction, but I will consider whether we cannot go a little further than that so as to ensure that those who joined the service in 1945 with the expectation that they might reach the top of it, will not be prejudiced by what has been done now.

Mr. Marlowe: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman began by saying that he would look at this matter again, I began to think that there was perhaps some hope that he would meet the point of view which has been expressed in favour of the unqualified clerk, but he has now made it clear that such looking at it as he will do is limited only to the question of the time of bringing it into operation, or was related to the possibility of arranging some special facilities in regard to the examination on account of war service. That does not go any length to meet my objection to the principle to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman adhered when he insisted upon universal qualifications before one could become a justices' clerk. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was trying to get both experience and qualifications together, but that is only a hope. As the Bill stands, no experience of any kind is required of a solicitor who has been qualified for five years as a solicitor, and he is immediately qualified to become a justices' clerk without any kind of experience in a justices' court.
I take this opportunity of putting forward this further weight into the scale. Under Clause 19 (8) of this Bill as it now stands, no justices' clerk can be appointed without the approval of the Home Secretary. Therefore, there is a safeguard there, and I should have thought it was ample. The Home Secretary approves the appointment after consultation, of course, with those who advised the appointment, because, first of all, the appointment has to come from the magistrates courts' committee which makes the first selection and sends the name to the Secretary of State, together


with the qualifications and experience of the proposed nominee. I should have thought that that was an ample safeguard to ensure that only properly fitted persons were appointed to these offices. I cannot see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made, nor that he could indeed make, anything of the point about facilities for passing examinations other than that to which he referred about war service. I do not think it is desirable to debase the value of the solicitor's examination, but nothing in this Bill can ensure that any such facilities are given.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend want to make a compromise on this matter, it might be satisfactory if there was instituted, instead of this solicitor's qualifications and justices' clerk's examinations, some proposal for a man to qualify as a justices' clerk by a suitable examination. Personally, I should regard that as satisfactory. One of my principal objections was that, whereas justices' clerks require mostly to be proficient in the criminal law, they have to spend a large part of their time in gaining the necessary experience in learning conveyancing and the law of real property in order to qualify. That seems to me to be taking their attention right off the qualifications which they really need, instead of the training being directed to that which would make them most proficient. If it were possible, instead of this Clause, to institute some qualifications for justices' clerk, I would regard that as satisfactory; there could be an examination in the appropriate subjects for justices' clerks.

Mr. Medland: The Law Society?

Mr. Marlowe: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to redraft the Clause while on my feet. It is a proposition which has only just occurred to me as satisfactory.

The Attorney-General: I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that it is not so.

Mr. Marlowe: It does seem to me that, on general principles, an examination might well be directed towards ensuring the possession of certain qualifications for the job that has to be done, and that that

is preferable to an examination in subjects in which the justices' clerk will have no interest when he comes to carry out his duties. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not given any satisfactory assurance on this point, and as I feel that this is a matter about which there is a large body of opinion in the Committee which feels that the position of the unqualified clerk ought to be secured, I hope that those who are interested in this matter will divide on the Amendment now before the Committee.

Mr. Corlett: In view of the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend has agreed to consider the whole matter, but has held out no hope that he will accept the Amendment, my hon. Friends and I reserve the right to divide the House on the Report stage, but at the moment I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21. —(FUNCTIONS OF JUSTICES' CLERK AS COLLECTING OFFICER.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 19, line 1, at the beginning, to insert:
As from the date when section nineteen of this Act comes into force.
This is the first of a series of Amendments—others are on Clause 23—designed to make provision for whole-time collecing officers who will cease to be collecting officers under this Clause under which the justices' clerk is to become the collecting officer by virtue of his office. These Amendments are put in to safeguard the position of those people and to define their relationship with the justices" clerk.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 19, line 33, after first "section" insert:
in pursuance of the powers exercisable."—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause 22. —(SUPERANNUATION OF JUSTICES' CLERKS AND THEIR STAFF.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Royle: I wish to ask a very brief question on this matter. Subsection (7) of this Clause relates to superannuation of justices' clerks and their staff. In some authorities these clerks have opted under


a local Act to sacrifice some of their pension so that in the event of their early death their widows might reap the benefit. All I am asking is whether this subsection covers that point. I should like to have an assurance to that effect.

The Attorney-General: I think that really is the purpose of the subsection. It is to attract those cases into the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23. —(EXISTING AND FORMER JUSTICES' CLERKS, ETC.)

Amendments made: In page 22, line 16, leave out from beginning, to second "the," in line 24, and insert:
(4) Where immediately before the said date a person is justices' clerk and collecting officer at the same court, subsections (1) and (3) of this section shall apply in relation to persons then employed by him as if his duties as collecting officer of that court had been duties appertaining to the clerkship.
(5) Where immediately before the said date a person to whom subsection (1) of this section does not apply is collecting officer of any court and devotes substantially the whole of his time to his duties as collecting officer of that court, he shall be transferred on the said date to the employment of the magistrates' courts committee as a member of the staff provided for the clerk of that court.
(6) Where the collecting officer of any court is transferred as mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, any person who immediately before the said date is employed by him to assist him in the performance of his duties as collecting officer of that court, and who devotes substantially the whole of his time to that employment, shall also be so transferred.
(7) Where a person who immediately before the said date is employed by a justices' clerk or collecting officer is transferred by this section to the employment of a magistrates' courts committee, the terms and conditions on which he is then employed by the justices' clerk or collecting officer, so far as they remain applicable, shall apply to his employment by the committee; and the terms and conditions on which a person is transferred to the employment of a magistrates' courts committee by subsection (5) of this section shall be such as in the opinion of the magistrates' courts committee are on the whole not less beneficial to him than those on which he held office as collecting officer.
(8) In relation to any person to whom the 1937 Act applies by virtue of the last foregoing section, being either—

(a) a person who before the said date has been a justices' clerk or employed by such a clerk in connection with the clerkship; or

(b) a person who on the said date is transferred to the employment of a magistrates' courts committee by subsection (5) or (6) of this section."

In page 23, line 6, at end, add:
(9) For the purposes of this section the expression 'collecting officer' means collecting officer of a court of summary jurisdiction appointed under the Affiliation Orders Act. 1914."—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25. —(DUTIES OF COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS.)

Mr. Marlowe: I beg to move, in page 23, line 24, to leave out "separate commission of the peace," and to insert "magistrates' courts committee.'
It may be convenient to the Committee to consider this Amendment together with the next one in page 24, line 25. at end, insert:
(7) Any expenses of the council of a county payable by virtue of this section shall be deemed to be expenses for special county purposes.
9.15 p.m.
It seems to me that it is far better to accept the standard that where a borough has the magistrates' courts committee the question of the consideration of expenditure should be taken into account through that committee. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the clerk to the justices would normally be the person who would conduct any negotiations with the borough, and the clerk of course receives his salary from the borough. It therefore seems far more desirable that the clerk to the justices should not be faced with the possibility of running into conflict with the council of the borough. These matters should be dealt with through the magistrates' courts committee, who are the persons most interested. This Amendment relates entirely to the question of expenditure, and proposes that the negotiations relating to that expenditure should go through the magistrates' courts committee. This eliminates the possibility of conflict between the justices' clerk acting on behalf of the holders of the commission of the peace and the local authorities.
I should like shortly to refer to the second Amendment, which proposes to add a new subsection to this Clause, and this is of particular importance in the


case of the Borough of Hove. It is not unrelated to the point which I brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman a little earlier, in view of the fact that the Borough of Hove has this high proportion of population in relation to the county area. The present position is that the Borough of Hove already carries one-third of the county rates, and unless these additional expenses, which are a matter for the county as they stand at the moment, are borne by the county, on top of what it is already contributing to the county the borough will pay an additional element in relation to expenses which are properly chargeable to the county.
The purpose of the Amendment is to keep those two elements separate, and to prevent boroughs in this position—there must be other boroughs affected—from having to bear an expense which is a matter for the county, inasmuch as it is the county magistrates' committee which incurs the expense and it is the county and not the borough on which that expenditure should fall.

The Attorney-General: I must confess that the purpose of these two Amendments was a little obscure to us when we saw them on the Order Paper, and I am bound to admit that their purpose has not been altogether clarified by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe). That was my fault. Might I make this suggestion? We will read carefully in the OFFICIAL REPORT what the hon. and learned Member has said tonight, and we will write to him about the matter, if he will withdraw his Amendment now. Then if be is not satisfied he will have an opportunity of raising the matter again on the Report stage.

Mr. Marlowe: I agree that this is rather a complicated matter, and I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee. Perhaps I have tried to shorten my remarks too much, but I did so in order to clarify the position. The course suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is agreeable to me, and on that understanding I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27. —(APPLICATION OF FINES AND FEES, AND PAYMENT OF EXPENSES OF COURTS.)

Amendment made: In page 27, line 33, leave out "enactment to that effect," and insert:
provision to that effect made by or under any Act."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29. —(APPOINTMENTS OUTSIDE LONDON.)

Mr. Collins: I beg to move, in page 29, line 14, at the end, to insert:
and of any boroughs or urban districts comprised in a district referred to in paragraph (d) of this subsection.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): This and the next four Amendments in page 29, standing in the names of the hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. Collins) and Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) might conveniently be discussed together.

Mr. Collins: This and the next five Amendments, which hang together, have as their object the putting back of an arrangement which was in the Bill originally, whereby the non-county boroughs and urban districts could join together in applying for the appointment of a stipendiary. I understand that when the Bill was in another place an arrangement was made whereby the counties or parts of a county were given that right, and that involved the loss of the right to the non-county boroughs and urban districts. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept these Amendments so that the right can be restored.
It will be obvious, I am sure, that there must be cases where a number of non-county boroughs and urban districts would find it desirable, and certainly within their financial means, to get together and make a petition for the appointment of a stipendiary, and it seems quite reasonable therefore to ask that such action should be allowed, that the appropriate words should be added to paragraph (b) of subsection (1) and that the addition of a paragraph (d) should be made to subsection (1). I do not know whether this point was overlooked in another place in making the


alteration favouring the counties. I do not wish to elaborate the point because I think it is quite obvious.

Mr. Ede: I think that my hon. Friend's series of Amendments would be defective certainly in one respect, because there is the serious position that he would allow two urban districts to apply for a stipendiary, but not for one urban district to do so. I cannot help feeling that that would be an anomaly which would make it very difficult to apply. After all, we are trying to get the administration of justice on as broad lines as possible and I think that the county rather than the urban district is the proper body to put forward these petitions. After all, the salary of the stipendiary will be a charge on the county rate and not on the district rate, and it is quite clear, therefore, that the power of initiation should rest with the county magistrates' committee.
I go further than that. I think we have to face the fact that it may well be desired to include with an urban district or a non-county borough some adjoining rural parishes which are most appropriately served through the non-county borough or urban district which is the real core and centre of the area. Do not let us forget that in a good many mining areas, for instance, what is called a mining village and is a rural parish is, in fact, a town with a substantial population. I cannot help thinking that the proposal in the Bill is a thoroughly workable one which conforms with the new idea for the set-up on a wider basis of the administration of justice. I hope my hon. Friend will not feel it necessary to press these Amendments.

Mr. Collins: May I ask a question? We have had regard to the fact that a borough with a separate commission of the peace already has the right to apply for a stipendiary under paragraph (a), and under paragraph (c) two or more areas are provided for, which appears to be the kind of case which the right hon. Gentleman has described, but the case of a non-county borough and one or more urban districts which might join together is not necessarily provided for in the Bill. Does he not think, therefore, that it might be wise to provide at this stage for such a union?

Mr. Ede: No; the two boroughs would be part of a county.

Mr. Collins: That is the interpretation?

Mr. Ede: Yes.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I should like to support what the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) was saying and to take up one or two points in what the Home Secretary said. This seems to me to be another crack at the non-county boroughs and their autonomy. As the hon. Member for Taunton has pointed out, when this Bill was introduced in another place this Clause stood as we now proposed that it should. It was in another place that it was amended to read as it now does, and, though I should be the last to criticise another place for improving a Bill, I myself do not see, from what the Home Secretary said, the reason why non-county boroughs and urban districts should not have the right of petitioning for stipendiary magistrates. He said that the charge would fall on the county and not on the petitioning council, but subsection (5) says:
The salary of a stipendiary magistrate appointed under this section shall be paid by the council or councils on whose petition he was appointed.
I ask the Home Secretary to look at this very carefully before the Report stage to see whether he cannot amend the Clause to make non-county boroughs feel that they are not to have more of their powers taken away.

Mr. Collins: In view of the explanation given by my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Marlowe: On a point of Order. Are you not calling, Mr. Bowles, the Amendment in my name, in page 29, line 43, to leave out from "paid," to the end of the subsection, and to insert "out of moneys provided by Parliament"?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is out of Order. It is beyond the scope of the Money Resolution.

Mr. Marlowe: May I detain the Committee for a moment on this Clause with regard to the payment of stipendiaries? I do not know whether it is in Order for me on this Clause to refer to the payment


of stipendiaries out of moneys provided by Parliament.

The Deputy-Chairman: No. That is why the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment was out of Order. If he referred to moneys provided by the Secretary of State, it might be in Order, but it is not in Order to refer to moneys provided by Parliament.

Mr. Marlowe: I would put it this way. There is considerable concern because it is considered undesirable that stipendiaries should be paid by the local authorities. I hope that at some time this matter will be given consideration. Certainly in some of the smaller towns it does lead to jobbery and to lobbying for appointments, and it also leads to the position that stipendiary magistrates become the servants of the local authorities. One knows only too well how sometimes in other countries local politics enter a good deal into the appointments to the judicial bench, and I think it would be very undesirable if any such system began to obtain a foothold here. As we know, there is no such tendency in this country as yet; but it is a point that needs to be watched, and I hope that the Home Office will from time to time, whenever this question of stipendiary magistrates' appointments is being considered, bear in mind the risk that one does run if one leaves this matter to the local authorities, so that the local magistrate in fact becomes a servant of the local authority, and, therefore, may be influenced in the discharge of his duties by the interest of the local authority.
That was the point which I had in mind in my Amendment which has not been selected. It was directed towards endeavouring to remove the stipendiary magistrates from the service of the local authorities, and to provide that their salaries should be paid out of some other source, which would remove any temptation for a stipendiary to regard himself as being influenced by the local authority.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman realises that stipendiary magistrates are not appointed by the local authorities, and that they are appointed by His Majesty?

Mr. Marlowe: But they are to be paid by them.

The Attorney-General: Paid out of local funds, but their appointment is solely in the hands of the Crown on the recommendation now of the Lord Chancellor, and the fact that their salaries happen to come out of local funds rather than out of national funds ought not to make them any more the servants of the local authorities. I really cannot see that the source of their salary should make any difference in regard to their independence of the local authorities.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that there may be cases where it is desirable to have a stipendiary magistrate but one will not be appointed because his salary has to be paid by the local authority. A local authority trying to save money may not cause a stipendiary magistrate to be appointed. Although he is appointed by the Lord Chancellor, the recommendation for the appointment arises locally, and no area will have a stipendiary magistrate unless it asks for it.

The Attorney-General: No new area.

Mr. Marlowe: Yes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31. —(APPOINTMENTS UNDER PREVIOUS ACTS.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 31, line 16, to leave out subsection (2).
This Clause introduces an Amendment of the Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1839, an Amendment which I consider to be of a rather serious nature. Under the existing law it is not possible to appoint anyone to be a stipendiary magistrate within the Metropolitan area unless that person has practised as a barrister during the seven years immediately preceding his appointment. That is a very desirable provision because it ensures that the person appointed as a stipendiary magistrate in London has some practical knowledge and experience of the courts. of this country. The effect of subsection (2) is to dispense with that requirement, and it seems to me that in future under subsection (2) it will only be necessary for someone to be called to the Bar and


wait seven years while earning his income in some other capacity, perhaps as a civil servant, and then at the expiry of that seven years, without any practical experience of the administration of justice and without seeing how it works in the police courts, he will be eligible for appointment as a stipendiary magistrate.
I dare say that thoughts will spring to the minds of some hon. Members of an appointment which was made some time ago and which caused a certain amount of discussion. I am not raising this subject tonight with a view indirectly to bringing into the Debate any question relating to that case. That appointment was made under the law as it now is—without this alteration. The question I want the Committee to consider is whether it is right to make this alteration in subsection (2). I can quite well conceive that the introduction of subsection (2) might be regarded as a civil servants' charter. It is a very convenient subsection for anyone who is able while following another occupation to pass the examinations and to be called to the Bar. The subsection is contrary to the recommendations of the Royal Commission; I should like to ask the Attorney-General why the Government have departed from those recommendations. There was no suggestion by the Royal Commission that this should take place. The Commission recommended that the field for appointment of stipendiaries should be enlarged to include solicitors, but I have seen nothing dispensing with the requirement of seven years' practice as a barrister.
Thinking over the subsection, it has occurred to me that it may be intended to provide for the appointment as a stipendiary of someone who has been serving in a judicial capacity outside these Islands and who is now back in this country and is eligible for appointment. It may be that the subsection was intended to cover that kind of case, but the wording goes much too far. What one ought to insist on in any case is that to be eligible for appointment the person must have practised as a barrister for at least seven years, even if owing to the holding of an appointment overseas the practice was not immediately preceding the appointment. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say that he will give this further consideration before the Report stage.

The Attorney-General: The existing law on this matter is a most curious anomaly. In connection with no other legal appointment—recorder, county court judge, High Court judge, or whatever it may be—is there this requirement that there should have been continuous experience during the seven years immediately preceding the appointment. It seems quite wrong that that requirement should be insisted upon in the case of a stipendiary magistrate. Moreover, the Clause as it now stands merely provides, in the case of Metropolitan magistrates, for the same qualification as that which has existed under the present law ever since 1882 in the case of the stipendiaries appointed for courts outside the Metropolis. I do not think experience has shown that it has been either a useful or a satisfactory provision. It is inconvenient that in recruiting magistrates one should be limited to those who happen to have gained their experience for a continuous period of seven years immediately preceding the appointment.
The case that the hon. and learned Gentleman thought of, those who may have served abroad, is one of the cases, that would be covered by this subsection. Another kind of case—and there are a few of these—is where a member of the Bar or a solicitor has been in practice in this country, has been persuaded often as a matter of public duty to take up an appointment for a limited period, perhaps on the Control Commission in Germany, and then has come back again to practise in this country. There may be other exceptional cases. I think most of them will turn out to be exceptional cases where a person has had to withdraw from practice perhaps for family reasons to go abroad for a year or because he has been ill for a period. In cases of that kind, those people who, for quite good reasons, have not been in continuous practice during the seven years immediately preceding the appointment but who have had in all at least seven years standing at the Bar, will be eligible and qualified for appointment.
I will only add that it seems to me in the highest degree unlikely that the Lord Chancellor would recommend to His Majesty the appointment of a person who, although he has been called to the Bar or qualified as a solicitor for seven years, has had no practical experience. That is


certainly not the purpose of bringing the law in regard to the appointment of stipendiary magistrates into line with that relating to county court judges and High Court judges. We think there is no reason for discriminating in this matter against the stipendiary, but I have no doubt at all that practical experience will be required.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have some sympathy with the reasons which the right hon. and learned Attorney-General has given for this Clause, but I think he will concede that it goes far beyond any necessity which those reasons have shown. It would be perfectly possible, if he so desired, to include in the qualifications some specific provision, such as judicial service abroad or service with the Control Commission, but he is providing that the only qualification for this appointment shall be first, call to the Bar and, secondly, the passing Of seven years during which the person appointed may have done something wholly out of line with legal practice.
The first point I want to make, therefore, is that the Clause does more than, according to the Attorney-General's argument, is necessary. Secondly, if there is any appointment in which actual practical experience of the rough and tumble of the courts is absolutely essential, it is that of a Metropolitan stipendiary magistrate. He requires to understand the ordinary workings of the criminal courts and the way in which people who practice in those courts think and conduct themselves. He needs to be in daily practical contact. In fact, this qualification has over a good many years worked perfectly satisfactorily. I do not think the Attorney-General will dispute that the Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates who have been appointed under successive Governments have given very general satisfaction; and I suggest that the qualification which has existed has had something to do with that fact.
It is a very easy argument for the Attorney-General to say, "But, of course, the Lord Chancellor would not appoint anybody who lacked any practical experience." If that is a valid argument at all, it is a valid argument for laying down no qualifications at all and leaving it entirely to the free direction of the Lord Chancellor. There may be something to be said for that, but that is not what is

being done under the Clause. A qualification is being provided; Parliament is being asked to say what it thinks is an appropriate qualification. That being so, surely we cannot ride off on the easy argument that, "We provide an inadequate qualification and then trust to the Lord Chancellor to do what is right." We should either put the responsibility squarely on the Lord Chancellor by providing no qualification at all, or we should take the responsibility of providing what we regard as an adequate qualification.
It seems to me that to provide that someone who has been called to the Bar seven years ago and has had no practical experience of the courts since should be eligible for appointment to one of these difficult, arduous and vitally important posts, is entirely unsatisfactory.

Mr. Janner: I should like to reply to those who ask for the Amendment. I think they have overlooked one or two have rather important matters. First, they have overlooked the position of a solicitor who has had very many years' practice and who chooses to apply to be called to the Bar after one year's absence from the solicitors' branch of the profession. If we insist upon seven years' continuous practice beforehand at the Bar, that solicitor, no matter how experienced he might have been in the courts, would be excluded from becoming a stipendiary magistrate. He would be in a worse position than the solicitor of
not less than seven years' standing
who had been appointed a magistrate under subsection (1). That is one example of how the proposal now before us could not work in view of the introduction in the Bill of new opportunities for solicitors.
The second point I should like to make is that there are many people who have had extremely long experience in the administration of justice in the courts—for example, police officers and chief constables, who after their term of office become barristers. They have quite as good qualifications as many of the stipendiaries who now sit in judgment upon those who come before them in the Metropolitan area.
Some people would say that the stipulation of seven years' previous experience has sometimes not been altogether an unmixed blessing. Anyone who sat in some


of the courts and heard what some of the stipendiary magistrates sometimes said would regard the seven years' experience as having been experience that was rather wasted and not helpful to them in the job they were undertaking. The important matter is that when a stipendiary magistrate is appointed, the qualifications and experience he has should be taken into consideration, and I assume they are taken into consideration. If he has been in practice for seven years, and is a barrister of seven years' standing, that should be quite sufficient to enable a proper choice to be made.

9.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: If the object of the Amendment is, as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) suggested, to ensure that those appointed should have practical experience of the magistrates' courts, it entirely fails in its purpose. Under the existing law in relation to the Metropolitan area, which the Amendment would restore, seven years' experience as a barrister at the Patent Bar or seven years as a conveyancing solicitor provides the necessary qualification for appointment, and one has under the existing law to rely upon the discretion of the officer of State who makes a recommendation to His Majesty about it.
It is impossible to provide by statute, and this Amendment does not seek to do it, that the seven years' experience in the period immediately preceding the appointment must be in the police court, and, in fact, the Amendment would entirely fail of its purpose. I do hope, in view of the late hour, that we shall be able to move from this Amendment and that the hon. and learned Member will accept the view that it is really illogical to insist upon a requirement for Metropolitan magistrates which is not expected in respect of those outside the Metropolis which has not been needed, apparently, in areas outside the Metropolis, and is not required in the case of the county court judge, the High Court judge, the Lord Justice in the Court of Appeal, or the Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.

Mr. Scollan: The more I listen to the discussion of this Bill, the more I am convinced that the lawyers who drew up the Bill not only want a closed shop, but actually are going to make provision

for the halt, the blind, the lame and the incompetent at all times to get a job. Anyone with any knowledge of the ordinary magistrates' court where the stipendiary magistrate takes the great bulk of cases which would come before a lay magistrate, knows perfectly well that there is no lawyer, no matter how clever, who, unless he has had some experience in his seven years, would not be more dangerous than useful in that job. I do not think any justification can be found for including this provision after listening to the discussion on the need for experience which took place in regard to justices' clerks. The whole of the argument adduced on that occasion was that experience was the main essential, and here it is brought forward that experience is of no value, and that what counts is simply the imprimatur of having passed as a barrister and been called to the Bar. I do not think there is any justification for that.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not sure whether I followed the speech of the hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) and if I followed it at all, that I understood it correctly, but it seemed to have little relation to the point under consideration. No doubt it will be considered with care by lawyers in Scotland.
I must say I am not wholly satisfied with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. The metropolitan stipendiary magistrates have always held a high reputation, and it may be that this particular qualification has been useful. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not really given much of a reason for its abolition. There is no suggestion, is there, that it has prevented good appointments from being made? Good appointments have been made. This new found passion for uniformity rather astonishes me, but I should be content if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would look at the wording of this Clause again because there is nothing in it which requires any person to have practised. It is only in the provisos in subsection (2) and (3) that there is any reference to practice. It really is making the Clause far too wide to say that a person shall be eligible for appointment if he is called to the Bar and waits for seven years. It may be someone who has done that and who holds a high position in the Civil Service. It may be that he is engaged in conducting or arranging prosecutions, but


I do not think that that should be sufficient unless he has had seven years' practice as a barrister.
The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) thought that this provision was a remarkably good one because it enabled retired police officers to qualify as stipendiaries. I do not know how the idea would be welcomed in West Leicester, but I very much doubt whether it would be welcomed in the Metropolis. That was an argument in support of the right hon. and learned Gentleman which really showed the weakness of his argument. I should be content not to press this matter further if the Attorney-General would say that he will have another look at the wording. I do not think that it is right.

The Attorney-General: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member. We will certainly do that and look at the wording again. I can assure the Committee that my noble Friend attaches great importance to experience and practice.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33. —(COMPULSORY RETIREMENT AND SUPERANNUATION.)

Amendments made: In page 33, line 43, leave out from "determination," to "that," in line 44, and insert "under the next following subsection."

In line 45, at end, insert:
(11) A determination for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection with respect to the stipendiary magistrate serving in any office at the date when this section comes into force may be given—

(a) at any time on or after the said date and before he ceases to serve in that office, by the authority paying his salary in that office; or
(b) on his ceasing to serve as a stipendiary magistrate, by the authority liable for any pension payable to him under this section;
and a determination under paragraph (a) of this subsection may be varied by a subsequent determination (whether under that paragraph or under paragraph (b) of this subsection) so as to increase, but not so as to reduce, the extent to which any service is to be taken into account."—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 34, line 43, at the end, to add:
or be a contributory employee under the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, as applied by any local Act or other instrument; and, where a stipendiary magistrate holding office at the coming into force of this section gives notice of his desire that subsection (1) thereof should apply to him, any contributions previously paid by him as stipendiary magistrate under the said Act of 1937 as so applied shall be returned to him.
This is an Amendment to deal with a special case, a superannuation scheme under a local Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 34 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43. —(EXPENSES AND PAYMENTS INTO EXCHEQUER.)

Amendment made: In page 39, line 43, after "1948," insert:
or under section seventy-seven of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45. —(COMMENCEMENT.)

Amendment made: In page 41, line 3, at the beginning, insert:
Except in so far as this Act provides to the contrary."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46. —(CITATION, REPEAL AND EXTENT.)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move, in page 41, line 39, to leave out "five" and to insert "six."
This has the effect of making Clause 6 apply to Scotland. That may be necessary in view of the position of the River Esk, where a prosecution might take place that would involve the application of the English law in Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 42, line 8, to leave out subsection (4).
This Amendment meets the Privilege Amendment inserted in the Lords.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I should like to the Secretary of State for Scotland to explain a little further subsection (3, b). This is rather obscure. Does the reference in subsection (3) to the First Schedule refer to the office of the Lord President of the Council? I ask the Secretary of State whether there is provision under this subsection for the duties of the Lord Chancellor in appointing justices of the peace to be transferred to the Lord President of the Council and in Scotland to the Lord President of the Court of Session? Is there to be provision for this on Report stage? There is a strong feeling on the part of Scottish Members that the power of the Lord Chancellor to appoint justices of the peace in Scotland should be transferred to Scotland. Is there any provision for this, or is it intended to make provision for it on Report stage?

Mr. Woodburn: Some of these Clauses may refer to the position of the Lord Chancellor. So far as the Lord President is concerned, if the hon. Member will read the report of the Royal Commission which sat on this question, he will learn that the Commission examined the question of who should be responsible for these matters. They took into account all the opinions expressed by those who gave evidence in Scotland, and there was a great deal of difference of opinion on the subject. The Commission could get no agreement in Scotland as to what change, if any, should be made, with the result that the Commission recommended that in the meantime the position should be left with the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor, in another place, expressed his view on the point which has been raised by the hon. Gentleman, and he said that as far as he was concerned he would gladly hand over the particular position he occupied in this matter if agreement could be arrived at amongst Scotsmen as to who was to do it. This position of the Lord Chancellor has been held since the Act of Union in 1707, and quite clearly it is not possible for the Government to fly in the face of a Royal Commission, on which Scotland was represented, which took evidence in Scotland, and which had these representations made to it.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I am interested in the point raised by my right hon. Friend about the respect which is shown to the findings of a Royal Commission. I should like to remind him that a Royal Commission issued a Report in 1834 recommending that certain offices in the City of Glasgow and in other towns in Scotland should be abolished. No respect has been shown to the findings of that Royal Commission. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should apply to that Commission of 115 years ago the respect which he is now showing to a Commission of a more recent date.

Mr. Willis: My right hon. Friend will recognise that some of the functions of the Lord Chancellor have already been given to the Lord President of the Court of Session under the pensions appeal tribunal arrangement where those functions are performed by the Lord President. Therefore, whilst it is true that difficulties exist, nevertheless we have taken one step towards getting this arrangement made in Scotland. Would my right hon. Friend look into this matter again before the Report stage?

Mr. Woodburn: The point is that the Commission looked into it.

Mr. Willis: This was since the Commission.

Mr. Woodburn: No. The Commission looked into it. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) talked about the respect due to a Royal Commission. That is one thing, but what the Royal Commission did was to pay respect to the opinion of people in Scotland. It is rather difficult for either this Committee or a Royal Commission to go in the face of opinion expressed by those who gave responsible evidence in Scotland. The position of the Lord President of the Court of Session was that what was suggested was not a practical proposition. It could not be carried out. That was made clear in the evidence of the Commission and in the Report. Therefore, if any change is to be made it will have to be one which is practicable. That is a matter for consideration by the people of Scotland first, and once they come to agreement about what they want and what they consider to be right, then the Government are prepared to consider the matter.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Secretary of State tell us who are the people in Scotland to whom he referred? There are a lot of people from Scotland in this Committee. I am one of the people from Scotland, but the Commission did not come anywhere near me.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause. —(APPOINTMENT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES.)

(1) There shall be in each county and in each borough having a separate commission of the peace an advisory committee for the purpose of advising the Lord Chancellor upon the appointment of justices of the peace for such county or borough.

(2) The chairman of the advisory committee for a county shall be custos rotulorum of the county and the clerk thereof shall be the clerk of the peace of the county.

(3) The chairman of the advisory committee of a borough having a separate commission of the peace shall be such person as the Lord Chancellor may appoint and the clerk thereof shall be the clerk of the peace for the borough.

(4) An advisory committee shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor who may by rules made by him give general directions as to the manner in which advisory committees shall carry out their duties.—[Sir G. Jeffreys.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
These advisory committees have existed for a very long time. It is well known that they exist and that their duties are to advise the Lords Lieutenant, or alternatively the Lord Chancellor direct, upon the selection and appointment of justices of the peace. Yet, those committees are not statutory committees. Nothing is laid down, as far as I know, in any Act of Parliament about their composition, their numbers or the scope of their duties. It is high time that they were made statutory, that their composition and duties were defined and their position regularised. It is remarkable that the functions of these committees—indeed, their existence—is not dealt with in this Bill. Although the Measure deals with justices of the peace, their courts, their clerks and their functions, it deals not at all with the method and procedure of their appointment.
During the Committee stage we have heard a good deal about the transfer by the Lord Chancellor of justices of the peace to the supplemental list, and also about the powers of the Lord Chancellor entirely to remove justices from the Commission. It has been stressed by the learned Attorney-General and also by the Home Secretary that it is a very invidious duty for the Lord Chancellor, while, on the other hand, it has been pointed out that, actually, the Lord Chancellor would be advised in such matters, possibly directly by these advisory committees, possibly by Lords Lieutenant, after consulting the advisory committees, but he certainly would be advised. Yet these advisory committees, which have powers of advice as to the making or unmaking of a justice of the peace, have no statutory existence at all, and are, in fact, unofficial bodies. I suggest that this is a matter which requires attention and regularisation by Act of Parliament.
The names of the members are kept very confidential, but in practice the name of the chairman, and possibly the names of some others, do become known and are to a certain extent talked and gossiped about. I believe there would be far more confidence in these committees if their names were known. The present committees are too much in the nature of Star Chambers. It is believed that in most cases the members of these committees are appointed as representing certain interests or certain parties, and it would be better if they were composed of senior magistrates representing various districts of the counties, or, in the case of county boroughs, those county boroughs.
This would no doubt mean that a big county would have a larger committee than a smaller county, but it is certain, and I speak with some experience in this matter, that under present conditions it is impossible for the committee to have first-hand information about all parts of a large county. If it is undesirable to enlarge the committees, possibly a system which has already been tried with success, to my certain knowledge, could be employed. Perhaps the system could be tried of appointing local sub-committees which possess the definite local knowledge which it is very difficult for a main committee to possess about the whole of a big county.
For all these reasons, I hope the Government may see fit to accept this new Clause for incorporation in the Bill, and so regularise and make statutory the existence and duties of these committees, which are, in fact, a recognised part of our magisterial system. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot accept the new Clause in its present form, cannot he accept its principle, and himself at a later stage of the Bill introduce another new Clause regularising and making statutory the advisory committees which now exist, and which, I suggest, are of very considerable importance?

Mr. Royle: I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) for moving this Clause in my absence. I have been in the Chamber nearly the whole of the day, and it is necessary to get a cup of coffee at some time. I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
My approach to this question may be rather different from that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I have not been sufficiently fortunate to hear the whole of his arguments. A similar new Clause was moved in another place, I regret to say unsuccessfully. I want to support it tonight, because I regard it as a question of very great importance. The Clause seeks to make statutory what at the present time is merely custom, and yet it is a custom which carries very great power. The Committee will agree, I think, that it is necessary to have in every county and in every county borough a committee of people to advise the Lord Chancellor of suitable persons to be added to the commission of the peace. No Lord Chancellor can hope to know by any other means than through the advisory committees who are suitable people.
Within every bench of magistrates throughout the country these committees exist at the present time. The trouble is that hardly anybody knows who they are or from where they get their names, and there seems to exist around these committees an air of suspicion. There appears to be a hole-and-corner method of activity, and it is this atmosphere which this Clause seeks to remove. In my own experience the meetings of magistrates which are regularly held never have anything to do with the

appointment of these advisory committees. Vacancies which occur on the advisory committees through death or retirement are never announced, and the question seems to arise who advises the Lord Chancellor about who shall go on the advisory committee to advise him as to whom it is advisable to make a magistrate. If my right hon. Friends can tell me how the appointments are made, I shall be very much indebted to them.
In reading the Debate on this Clause in another place I find that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor suggested that in these matters he is completely Dominus. I want to suggest that if the Lord Chancellor were to do all the appointing himself, he would not only be Dominus but Deus as well. The appointment of magistrates is a very vital matter. They have to sit in judgment on their fellows, and it is a bad thing that appointments should be made in an atmosphere of secrecy and suspicion. There should be no suggestion that appointments of magistrates are made on the basis of who a man is rather than what he is. If I dare paraphrase the late Lord Chief Justice Hewart, I would say that appointments of magistrates must not only be just, but must also appear to be just. I suggest that the present situation cannot possibly attain that desire.
My noble Friend also said that the next step would be to make the Lord Chancellor accept the recommendations. How could that possibly happen by the simple method of making the committees part of the Bill? I am bound to say that it completely passes my comprehension that my noble Friend should make such a suggestion. I suggest that the committees should be put into the Bill, that they should become statutory, that they might keep minutes of their deliberations, and that, having appointed a secretary, as they must, it should be known to organisations and to publicly-minded individuals that they are at liberty to submit recommendations to the secretary appointed by the advisory committee.
I am perfectly confident that with such an arrangement very suitable names would be considered which otherwise would probably never reach either the advisory committees or the Lord Chancellor. It seems appalling to me that the machinery for creating magistrates is never once mentioned in


a Bill which is called the Justices of the Peace Bill. Here is an opportunity to abolish that anomaly, and I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to accept this new Clause.

10.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: We have made a great many concessions to all points of view in the course of our discussion of this Bill in Committee, but I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope of making a concession on this matter. This proposed new Clause would give a statutory, rigid and uniform basis to the advisory committees. I have always thought—and I think it is true of this kind of institution as well as of the other English institutions—that one of the greatest merits of our Constitution is that it is not statutory and not defined, but is elastic and vague. In the past—in fact, in the very recent past—there have been many occasions when we have had reason to be more than thankful that that was so.

Sir G. Jeffreys: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says perfectly justly, of course, that the Constitution is not statutory and is not rigid, but can that be said of the law on such a matter as the appointment of justices of the peace?

The Attorney-General: The appointment of judges in the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords and the county court, and the appointment of magistrates, is not regulated by any statutory provisions of this kind. The matter is in the hands of His Majesty on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, or the Prime Minister, or whoever it may be in a particular case. There is no rigid code of law in regard to that matter. I know that there have been complaints about the functioning of advisory committees in the past, and I know that in particular cases there has sometimes been an unsatisfactory state of affairs, but my impression is that things have been getting, I was going to say gradually, but I think I should say markedly, better in recent years, and these complaints are now much less frequent and much less justified.
I suggest to the Committee that it really would be most undesirable to put a matter of this very delicate kind upon a rigid statutory basis. Under our system

—and I think it is right to preserve it—my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor alone is personally responsible for the appointment of justices. Not one member of the advisory committees has a personal responsibility in the matter, and there is no way in which under our existing system the Lord Chancellor can abdicate his responsibility for appointing magistrates or can avoid answering for the appointment of a bad one.

Mr. Royle: He should have advice.

The Attorney-General: I am coming to that. I know the duty is one to which my noble Friend gives very close personal attention. He must have advice, of course, when making a large number of appointments all over the country, but he ought also to have a completely unfettered discretion as to the manner in which and the persons from whom he obtains his advice. The appointment of a public committee under some rigid rules—I do not know what they would be—would certainly fetter his discretion in this matter of selecting his own advisers, and—I think this must be obvious to the Committee—it would open the door wide to all kinds of influence, canvassing, pressure, and the like. Indeed—and I say this quite seriously—the practical result of appointing a public committee who are known to be the advisers of the Lord Chancellor would bring us dangerously near to the appointment of justices by some kind of popular method of election.
I believe that would be a thoroughly retrograde and dangerous step for us to take. The moment people get on to a statutory committee of this kind they begin to claim for themselves statutory rights and the public at large consider that they have statutory powers. Before long complaints would be made, or tend to be made, by the statutory committee that, having been appointed as the committee, their advice was not being taken, and one would get all sorts of unfortunate conflicts between the Lord Chancellor, on whom at present the responsibility rests, and the committee, which as time went on would undoubtedly seek to gain the power in practice from the Lord Chancellor.
I want to say a word or two upon the specific provisions of this new Clause. Subsection (1) deals with the boroughs which ought to have advisory committees.


The fact is that in the existing arrangements, with the exception of eight small boroughs of under 5,000 population, there already is a separate advisory committee for every area which has a separate commission of the peace and subsection (1) of the new Clause would not, therefore, make any significant alteration in the existing practice at all.
Subsection (2) seeks to make it mandatory for the custos rotulorum, invariably nowadays the Lord Lieutenant, and the clerk of the peace to be chairman and clerk of the committee respectively. But there are cases—not a great many but certainly some—in which one or other of them is unwilling to accept the duties of those offices or in which, for one reason or another, in the case of one or other of them it is undesirable that he should be chairman or clerk of the committee, and it would be quite wrong and quite impracticable to make any rigid rule that in every case these officers should have to hold these positions in the committee. Subsection (3) is in accordance, again, with existing practice and there is no need at all for any expressed statutory power to achieve it.
So far as the points made by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) are concerned, I think almost all the objects that he had in mind can be achieved by arrangement and discussion between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant or the custos rotulorum.
As far as the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle) are concerned, in regard to the submission of names, it is generally known nowadays who the chairman of the advisory committee is—that has constantly been said in the course of our Debates—and there is no difficulty at all in submitting names either to him or direct to the Lord Chancellor. If they are submitted to the Lord Chancellor they go back to the advisory committee. If anybody has a name which he thinks it right to bring forward, he is able to do it now, and the establishment of a statutory committee would not make it any easier. What it would make easier would be for the man who wanted to put forward a friend as a candidate for justice of the peace to start canvassing all the people he thought likely to be able

to bring pressure to bear on the Lord Chancellor in the matter. That seems to be a wholly undesirable state of affairs.

Mr. Marlowe: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) on this matter, but I feel it is necessary to support the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the point. I believe it is most undesirable that this rather flexible and characteristically English institution should be reduced to a rigid formula by Statute. It may be that it is not necessarily the best method of dealing with these matters, but it is one which has worked very well for quite a long time. I have not heard any case made out against it yet. If it is desired to change an institution, I am for putting the onus of proving the necessity for the change on those who advocate it. I cannot see that my hon. and gallant Friend or the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle) have established any case.
The hon. Member for West Salford said that the system gave rise to all sorts of suspicion. That might be said to be a case for the change, but I know of no reason why it should give rise to any sort of suspicion at all. If it does, then it is a rather sad reflection upon public morality and upon the standard of public life today. However, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think there is any reason to have any apprehension about these appointments at all. I think that this is a system which has worked well. If we start to make a change in it, we shall lead, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, to many objections, and particularly—and this is the most important of them all—to lobbying.
From time to time we have had to consider in the House questions in relation to the nationalised industries. If in the appointment of magistrates this suggested procedure was adopted, and if there was a statutory body, we should find that the Lord Chancellor—or some Minister in this Chamber on his behalf—would be liable to answer Questions on appointments. It would be most unfortunate if hon. Members could put down Questions about why a person was not appointed a justice of the peace in a particular area and started to put forward all his qualifications for the post, and so on. I think it is essential that these appointments


should remain in the ambit of the Lord Chancellor's powers of appointment. This method has worked very satisfactorily for a long period of our history, and I personally see no reason for making any changes.

Mr. McKinlay: I am somewhat timorous in entering into a discussion on the appointment of magistrates. It is peculiar that in Scotland the Lord Chancellor has nothing whatever to do with appointing magistrates. The magistrates in the burghs are appointed by the local authorities, and they do not need to ask the consent of either the Lord Chancellor or any other body in electing whom they will as a magistrate.

Mr. Tiffany: Are they lobbied?

Mr. McKinlay: I have been a J.P. for the best part of 16 or 17 years—possibly more. However, one thing that I could not discover was who appointed the advisory committee; nor could anybody ever tell me at any time whether the Lord Lieutenant took the advice of the advisory committee. I can recall an occasion when a person who was one of the best of men—possibly, one of the greatest Scotsmen of his generation—who ultimately became the Secretary of State for Scotland, and who was recommended for a J.P.-ship two years before he came to the House of Commons, was turned down by the Lord Lieutenant, not because he was not a fit and proper person, but because he was not a Tory.
My right hon. and learned Friend has just said that complaints are getting fewer. Of course, they are getting fewer because political pressure has changed. Do not let us make any bones about it—99 per cent. of the appointments to the benches of justices of the peace were, and are to this day, political. We had in the City of Glasgow an advisory committee who agreed with the Lord Lieutenant the names that were to go forward. Some names were eliminated. To the consternation of the advisory committee, when the appointments were announced, the five whose names had been deleted by the advisory committee were appointed. I want to ask my right hon. and learned Friend this question. Am I to assume from what he said that the Lord Chancellor accepts full responsibility? Do I take it that the Lord

Chancellor has accepted responsibility in that case for restoring to the list the five names that had been deleted?
As a matter of fact, such parts of the discussions on this Bill as I have listened to, cause me to feel that no regard has been paid to the fact that there are two different legal systems. I have every sympathy with the purpose of this Bill, but I do not think it solves the problem so far as the appointments system is concerned. I have every regard for the present Lord Chancellor and I have the same high regard for the Law Officers of the Crown; but not one of them, at least during the course of this Debate, has disclosed any knowledge of the system which operates north of the Tweed. The situation which I have mentioned was further intensified, because in 1924 a new advisory committee was set up in that county when the Labour Government took office; but before that committee could meet the Government went out; the new advisory committee was dissolved, and the old gang was sent back. From then until 1930 there was not a single Labour justice of the peace in the 66 square miles left in the county.
10.30 p.m.
There is nothing in this Bill which can prevent a recurrence of that kind of thing, and nothing in this Bill which can prevent a Labour majority on local authorities from stuffing a bench with Labour representatives. I do not want to see even a Labour representative on the bench if he is not a person worthy of appointment. That is the crux of the matter. I would like the Home Secretary to have another look at this.
That is the reason why we want consultation with some responsible person with executive authority in Scotland dealing with appointments north of the Tweed. That is all we ask. We do not want to interfere with the English system; but I am satisfied, even with my limited knowledge, that south of the Tweed nine-tenths of the benches appointed were appointed for political reasons. If complaints are now fewer than they were, it is because there has been a political turn-over in the outlook of the people in various areas. That is no reason why this system should go on.

Mr. Royle: I want to ask a question on a point on which I am not quite clear. I should like to ask the Attorney-General what will be the position in regard to


magistrates who by reason of age go on to the supplemental list if they are members of an advisory committee. As the advisory committee is not statutory, will they retain their position on the nonstatutory advisory committee in spite of the fact that they have gone to the supplemental board?

The Attorney-General: There are no ex officio members of the advisory committee, and it would be undesirable that they should become so. Nor do members of advisory committees hold life appointments. It is for the Lord Chancellor to consider whether they should continue for a longer period than six years, which I believe is the normal period for which they act. No doubt in appointing them the Lord Chancellor will consider whether they are likely to reach the supplemental list, if they happen to be magistrates, before the expiry of those six years.

Mr. Ede: As one who was for more than 20 years a member of an advisory committee and is so no longer—and therefore I shall not be canvassed as a result of what I am going to say or because of that confession—I think it ought to be explained to hon. Members who have not been members of an advisory committee that those committees are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. I received an invitation from a Lord Chancellor who was not of my political complexion to go on to the advisory committee for the county in which I then resided and still reside. I can assure the House that the utmost care is taken by that advisory committee to get into touch with all those interests in the county whom it is desirable to approach with regard to the presenting of suitable names.
There is, however, one thing that one has to be careful about. It is that this does not mean a system of co-option by the existing benches of people whom they think are suitable. There is a danger, and I was sorry to hear the suggestion from the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) that the advisory committee should be composed of the senior magistrates of the county. Some of the senior magistrates should be there. I recollect the chairman of a bench complaining to the advisory committee on which I served that a perfectly suitable man whom we were proposing to appoint was unsuitable for the bench because, as

he said, "I have inquired of the police about him, and they know nothing." The obvious retort was: "If the police had known a great deal about him, he would have been most unsuitable."
With regard to politics, one has to make it clear that political allegiance is no qualification. It is no disqualification either. One does want on the bench people who can make up their minds, and sometimes people who cannot make up their minds about politics may take a long time about making up their minds on issues which come before the bench. What one has to look for is people of a certain temperament, and to get them from as wide a range of social classes and occupations as possible so that all members of the community shall feel that the bench has all the knowledge that it ought to have about the way people live when it is deciding those human problems which are, in the main, the business of magistrates' courts. Legal qualifications are sometimes advisable, but some of the worst members of the bench can be solicitors who have had no practice in criminal law, but who spend a deal of time airing knowledge, which they have not acquired in practice, in the magistrates' room when simple issues have been brought before the court.
The appointment of a magistrate is essentially a human one, and I think that to advertise the names of those people whose duty it is to advise the Lord-Lieutenant would place them in an invidious and impossible position. I do not think many would stand for the job for very long if that were the case. One has to be careful, while listening to the existing magistracy, to see that from time to time fresh ideas and new people break into the charmed circle. When the Lord Lieutenant of the county first spoke to me after I had been appointed to the advisory committee, he said, "Mr. Ede, you will find in the month of September that in the county of Surrey the population is divided into two groups. One, a very small group, is composed of the existing magistrates, who are determined that no one else shall be appointed. The other, a large group, consists of the rest of the county, who are convinced that one person at least is required to make the Surrey magistracy the most perfect in the world." The advisory committee has very responsible duties to discharge which


can best be discharged if it is not hampered by fixed rules but is able to apply proper human tests to the material that might be recruited to the bench.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It appears that this new Clause will be withdrawn, but I should like to say one word before that is done. I am in agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the undesirability of publishing the names of the advisory committee. If that took place, it would make the conduct of their work quite impossible; but I feel that some counties do not quite follow the high standards which are always pursued, we are told, in Surrey. Unfortunately, the position sometimes is that when inquiries are made after a person is recommended and there is a question of political colour, the reply is that there is no idea of his political colour. In the country areas it is important to pay attention to the time the person has been living there in the area. If this new Clause is carried to a Division. I shall certainly vote against it.

Mr. Rankin: I should like to put a question to my right hon. Friend. He made it clear that in England the advisory committee is appointed by the Lord Chancellor; that was the point which I think he made. There is no one here to answer for Scotland, but will the Home Secretary tell us whether it is the case that the Lord Chancellor appoints the advisory committees functioning in Scotland? Does his answer cover Scotland as well as England? If not, will he say who appoints the advisory committees in Scotland? If he cannot say that now, will he give a promise that he will make it clear at a later stage?

Mr. Ede: I cannot say that at the moment. I will make inquiries.

Sir G. Jeffreys: It falls to me, with the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle), to ask for permission to withdraw this new Clause, but before doing so, I should like to say that I thought the Home Secretary was arguing a little from the general to the particular. There are not many chairmen of magistrates like the one he quoted; Surrey is a semi-suburban county, with great respect to it, and I wonder whether what he said about it applies to every other county. He does not like the terms of this new Clause but

would he, at any rate, consider a Clause to make these committees statutory, although as wide as possible? I am sorry he was not willing to do what we want and, therefore, in all the circumstances I must regretfully ask permission to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause. —(CHAIRMAN OF COUNTY AND DISTRICT COUNCIL NOT TO BE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE EX OFFICIO.)

Subsection (5) of section three of the Local Government Act, 1933 (which provides that the chairman of a county council shall, by virtue of his office be a justice of the peace for the county), and subsection (5) of section thirty-three of that Act (which provides that a chairman of a district council shall, by virtue of his office be a justice of the peace for any county in which the district is wholly or partly situate) shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. Royle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Royle: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The position with regard to chairmen of county councils and district councils is quite different from the position with regard to mayors. The arguments are very well-known to the Committee. The number of chairmen of county councils is limited and I am sure that in every one of those cases, these people will have been magistrates before they became chairmen of county councils. With regard to the hundreds of people who are chairmen of district councils of one kind and another, it is simply ridiculous that that mass of people year after year should be added to the commissions of the peace in the way they are. We had a debate early yesterday on this matter and since throughout the proceedings on the Bill I appear to be a defender of lost causes, I shall not be very disappointed if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General turns me down once more on this occasion. I move this new Clause in order to place on record the fact mat this matter has been discussed in this Committee.

Mr. Ede: I think the arguments used yesterday with regard to the position of mayors applies equally with regard to the position of chairmen of district councils. It is true there are about 1,400 district


councils that may have chairmen, but all these people do not sit on one bench. At most there are two or three on any bench. I think that the recognition of the office, and not of the man, is a sufficient justification for retaining this. If the man or woman is unsuitable, the Lord Chancellor can decree that he shall not sit during his period of office as chairman. As a result undesirable people who might get on the bench in this way can be excluded. There is now a rule in most areas that a person is not appointed to a permanent commission of the peace while holding one of these appointments. On occasion it gives the bench an opportunity of seeing how a man of some standing in a district can act in his capacity as a justice, if he has the opportunity during his year of office of sitting on the bench. As a rule he sits on the extreme flank and his position as an ex officio justice is clearly enough marked by that when the court is sitting. I hope we shall preserve for the office rather than for the man this opportunity of public service.

Mr. Royle: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause. —(SAVING FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX.)

(1) Nothing contained in Part III or Part IV of this Act shall modify or affect any of the provisions of Part XVI or Part XVII of the Middlesex County Council Act, 1944, and such provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

(2) In so far as the repeal of any of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1888, is consequential on Part III or Part IV of this Act, such repeal shall not extend to the county of Middlesex and the said Act of 1888 shall continue to have effect in regard to that county as if the provisions in question had not been repealed.—[Mr. Pargiter.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Pargiter: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
We are seeking here to protect a position in the county of Middlesex where we have already largely done, and have been doing for many years, what is proposed in this Bill in regard to magistrates' courts and clerks. In the London and Middlesex Improvements Act, 1936, we sought to obtain powers to regulate magistrates' courts and clerks, petty sessional

divisions, and other matters, through the Standing Joint Committee. The Roche Committee, in considering the matter, paid tribute to Middlesex on the way the courts were run and the method that had been adopted. In effect, we provided that all future appointments of clerks should be whole-time; we separated the clerk's staff from the clerk and appointed them separately to their jobs; they were put into a superannuation scheme; the Standing Joint Committee were responsible and the responsible officer was the clerk of the peace. If there is no saving Clause for Middlesex, it will mean that there will be another public appointment of a clerk to the magistrates' court to do the job that has been done admirably by the clerk of the peace, as is admitted on all sides. It will also involve certain additional staff.
I am not suggesting that to Middlesex, with a penny rate producing about £90,000, that is an insuperable barrier. But we do say that, whether it is a large amount or a small amount, if the job is being done well and can continue to be done well, there appears to be no reason why Middlesex should not be excluded. There is a further reason and a rather important one, that Middlesex is a peculiar county and it is very peculiar indeed in the position of its Standing Joint Committee. It is, I believe, the only Standing Joint Committee in the country which has no police functions, and it is perhaps that point that I might commend to my right hon. Friend; that not having any control at all over the police, the important point that the bodies concerned with the police shall not be concerned in any way with the administration of justice is not involved at all so far as Middlesex is concerned. I do not think I need detain the Committee any longer. I could explain it at greater length, but perhaps the Home Secretary is as well seized of the point regarding Middlesex as I am.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend has moved this Clause and I have had an opportunity of receiving a deputation from the Middlesex Standing Joint Committee, which he accompanied, who laid the position before me. I can see no reason why the magistrates of the county of Middlesex should be placed in a different position with regard to the control of the arrangements in their county from that which we are proposing to make


for the magistrates in all other parts of the country. It is true that the Standing Joint Committee of Middlesex has no police functions, because the whole of the county is within the Metropolitan Police area, but that does not alter the position that, if the arrangements that now exist in Middlesex should continue, the magistrates will not be the only persons who will be concerned in the arrangements of the magistrates' work.
There will be certain persons appointed by the County Council forming half the Standing Joint Committee, some of whom, it is true, may be magistrates but will not of necessity be magistrates. These people will be having an influence in the county of Middlesex with regard to the arrangements of magistrates' courts and work, which does not apply elsewhere. With regard to the position of the clerks, it will be competent for the magistrates' courts committee to ask the clerk of the peace to fill the office of clerk of the magistrates' courts committee, and I should hope that they would do so in the first place. I should hope, too, that if they do it, there would be no objection on the part of the Standing Joint Committee to the clerk of the peace acting in that capacity.
I think it is desirable that the responsibility placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of magistrates elsewhere in the country should be shouldered by the magistrates of Middlesex. It is true that the Middlesex County Council, I think, in a most enlightened way when magistrates' courts committees were not in the picture, did obtain a private Act which enabled the present arrangement to be set up. That arrangement, as the Roche Committee pointed out. has been used as one of the stepping-stones towards the proposals made for the country as a whole.
I can see no reason why, having set the good example which has led the rest of the country into this good path, the Middlesex magistrates should not join their colleagues and the rest of the country in escaping from the shackles of the Standing Joint Committee and have an autonomous body which, I am sure, would administer the county both efficiently and economically.

Mr. Pargiter: I am sorry the Home Secretary cannot see his way clear to

grant this small request, but I fully appreciate the reason he advanced. The shackles to which he referred are merely shackles of love rather than shackles of bondage, and we had no difficulty at all in maintaining that part of it. I would just like to ask one question on this which does matter considerably. In our arrangements we have brought the county treasurer into the picture to the extent that the internal audit of magistrates' courts and so on is done as pan of the normal duties and routine of the county treasurer's department. That internal audit has been, I think, from the public point of view, very useful from time to time. He says that we might be able to agree that the clerk of the peace should be used. Would that apply to such other services as we have found most useful in the general administration of the machine?

Mr. Ede: If the magistrates' courts committee—which will, I have no doubt, include some members of the standing joint committee and possibly some members of the county council—desire to use certain county officers for their administrative purposes, for the oversight of bills and for the repair and design of buildings and so on, and they make application either to the standing joint committee or to the county council or whoever may be the employers of those people, then I should have thought that that was eminently a matter on which there could be a Satisfactory arrangement. In fact, I hope throughout the country there will be an effort to use the existing officers in that way rather than that a number of people should be given part-time or whole-time appointments, so duplicating work that is already being done.

Mr. Pargiter: May I, more in sorrow than in anger, beg to ask leave to withdraw my new Clause?

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule. —(PROVISIONS CONSEQUENTIAL ON CHANGES IN COMMISSION OF THE PEACE.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move in page 47, line 45, after "recorder," to insert "or court of quarter sessions."
This and the following three Amendments are consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 47, line 46, leave out from beginning to second "may."

In page 50, line 21, leave out from "the," to first "and," in line 23, and insert:
coming into force of section twenty-five of this Act.

In page 50, line 24, leave out "that committee," and insert:
the magistrates' courts committee acting for the county."—[The Attorney-General.]

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I beg to move, in page 50, line 36, to leave out paragraph 16.
This Amendment stands in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and I think I can move it quite briefly, if not with the same clarity as the right hon. Gentleman would expect from my hon. and learned Friend. Our purpose is to try to get an assurance from the Home Secretary that the property of a non-county borough will not be transferred in the event of its losing its quarter sessions to the county against the wishes of the borough concerned.
I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that the magistrates' courts of many of these non-county boroughs are often held in places of great antiquity and great local interest. In my own non-county borough of Stamford a magistrates' court and petty sessions are held in the Town Hall. I think it is quite plain that, under paragraphs 14 and 15 of this Schedule, the non-county borough of Stamford, in the event of its losing its quarter sessions, would be entitled to have its magistrates continue to use the property and sit in the court with the consent of the local authority concerned. When we come to paragraph 16 it does seem to go very much further because, as I see it, under that paragraph the Secretary of State has power to transfer property to the county council against the possible wishes of the county borough or non-county borough concerned. Possibly our fears are groundless and I hope that the Home Secretary can give us an assurance that this is not intended, and, in point of fact, will not be done.

11.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I can give that assurance to the noble Lord. There could be no question of transfer to the county of premises which the borough used for other purposes in addition to the purposes of the courts.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: What then are the words "transfer of property" intended to contemplate?

The Attorney-General: They are intended to contemplate the case where proper arrangements cannot be made between the county and borough for the transfer of premises which are used for the sittings of courts, not, in the case of the town, used for other purposes, but court premises required by the county and not the borough.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In some cases these premises are of great antiquity and boroughs would resent strongly being deprived of them. Would the Attorney-General not have another look at this before the Report stage because I am sure it would be possible to use these premises without depriving the boroughs of ownership.

The Attorney-General: That certainly will be possible. We hope that the power will rarely be used, but if a borough adopts an obstinate or dog-in-the-manger attitude about their use and thereby prevents the convenient administration of justice in the borough then it is necessary that the Secretary of State should intervene, but his powers are only to be used when there is no agreement.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Tiffany: I wish to draw attention to paragraph 20 of this Schedule. I am not seeking its withdrawal otherwise I would have put down an Amendment to that effect, but in the original Bill there was no provision to this effect. An Amendment, however, was inserted in another place. The reasons for its acceptance have caused me to raise the matter now. One of the reasons the Lord Chancellor gave for accepting it was that the


Amendment was in some sense a most disgraceful Amendment. It is news to me that one accepts Amendments, either in this Committee or another place, simply because they are disgraceful. Another reason the Lord Chancellor gave was that the present custos rotulorum was a unique person.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss reasons why Amendments were accepted in another place?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman, as I understood him, is giving his objections to a part of this Schedule on the Question that the Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill. I see no reason why he should not do so.

Mr. Tiffany: The custos rotulorum in some people's minds may be unique, and in others not unique, tout it does seem peculiar to accept Amendments on those grounds. Going a little further, another reason makes the whole position even more paradoxical, because we have been told in another place that if the powers given in the paragraph are used the Lord Chancellor will be the first person to remove these powers. I did not know that the Lord Chancellor had power to remove a paragraph from a Schedule without the consent of either House, and it seems to me that peculiar and flimsy reasons were given why this paragraph should be included in the Schedule.

The Attorney-General: I believe it is a fact that in a moment of ebullience, occasioned by the prospect that the discussions on the Bill had almost reached their conclusion, it was said in another place, in a spirit of frivolity unusual there, but I am sure very enlivening, that the proposal was a disgraceful one. The real reason for the inclusion of this paragraph, however, was to preserve a most unusual, curious, and ancient situation which existed in the Soke of Peterborough. It has no practical result on the administration of justice, but preserves a long and interesting tradition.

Question put, and agreed to.

Third Schedule. —(NON-COUNTY BOROUGHS RETAINING COMMISSIONS OF PEACE.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Third Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Ede: It will be necessary, as a result of an Amendment we carried yesterday, to add to the list of non-county boroughs retaining commissions of the peace. It would have been an imposition on the Committee, and on the Chairman, to have put that Amendment down for considerdation tonight, because it would have meant the Chairman having to read out a long list of boroughs which hon. Members could not possibly have checked at the time. We shall therefore submit the necessary Amendment to give effect to the decision of the Committee when we come to the Report stage. Hon. Members will then have the opportunity of seeing the list, so that if there should be any question with regard to inclusion or exclusion they will have the opportunity of raising the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Fourth Schedule. —(CONSTITUTION, ETC., OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS COMMITTEES.)

Mr. Marlowe: I beg to move, in page 53, line 13, after "county" to insert, "and the deputy-chairman."
This and the next three Amendments standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Basil Nield) all go together. I understand he takes the view that, as the chairman is included here, and many quarter sessions have a person identifiable as a deputy-chairman—often a salaried deputy-chairman—it is advisable that he should be included in the capacity in which the chairman is included. There may be many occasions when the chairman is not able to be present and it may be desirable that the deputy-chairman should carry out his functions, but in paragraph (2) the deputy-chairman is not recognised, although he is recognised in respect of many other of his functions.

The Attorney-General: I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment. It is a complete non sequitur to suggest that because the chairman should be a member of the magistrates' committee, therefore the deputy-chairman should be a member. In some areas there is also an assistant-chairman. The next suggestion would be perhaps that he should go on as well, in case the chairman and the deputy-chairman happened to be unavailable. It was decided in another


place, as something of a concession, that the chairman should automatically go on, but to say that the deputy-chairman should go on as well is, we think, rather over-doing it and simply provides an additional member to fulfil a function which normally can be fulfilled by the chairman, who normally will be available to attend. I hope that the hon. and learned Member, who I think did not press the Amendment with any very great conviction as to its merits, will now be able to withdraw it.

Mr. Marlowe: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Marlowe: I beg to move, in page 54, line 22, to leave out from "over," to the end of line 23, and to insert:
unless the Secretary of State orders to the contrary in which event he shall, if required, state his reasons to the council of the non-county borough concerned.
Perhaps, with this, we could discuss the next Amendment in my name, in line 29, to leave out from "county," to the end of line 30, and to insert:
unless the Secretary of State orders to the contrary in which event he shall if required state his reasons to the chairman of any quarter sessions concerned.
The Amendment standing on the Order Paper in front of these two Amendments, also in my name, has already been dealt with by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I will not, therefore, pursue it. The position as it now stands requires clarification because under Clause 16 it appears that every non-county borough with the required population of 75,000 will get a magistrates* committee. That is the impression one gets, although I agree that it is permissive in the sense that the word "may" is used in this paragraph, whereas the word "shall" is used elsewhere. Of course, the idea that a non-county borough with a population of 75,000 will get a magistrates' committee is wholly illusory, for when we turn to this Schedule it appears that it is by no means a necessary consequence that it will have a committee merely because it has the required population. The Schedule reads that the committee will be appointed
if, but only if, it is for the time being so directed by an order of the Secretary of State.
I would prefer the emphasis to be the other way. My Amendment suggests that

they should get their committee unless, for good reasons, the Home Secretary directs otherwise, and I have coupled with that the suggestion that in the event of the Home Secretary so doing he should state his reasons to the responsible person. The latter suggestion is not, perhaps, so important, but it seems to me that the emphasis in the Schedule should be that the committee will automatically follow on the attaining of a population of 75,000 unless there is good cause for the contrary. The Schedule does not give any guidance as to the grounds on which the Home Secretary shall withhold the committee; it is rather arbitrary. There is nothing to prevent the Home Secretary, if he feels like doing so, exercising the power in a purely arbitrary way and saying, "I just do not think I will give a committee to these people "; he need give no explanation for exercising the power in an arbitrary way. That is not a satisfactory position and I hope some Amendment will be made on the lines I have suggested.

The Attorney-General: The argument which the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) put forward that there was nothing to prevent the Home Secretary from exercising his functions under this Schedule in an arbitrary way is one which can often be put forward on a purely theoretical basis. Legally there is not, but the fact is that the Home Secretary, like other Ministers in whom discretionary powers are vested, is responsible to Parliament, and the assumption of constitutional practice is, I think, that where powers of this kind are vested in a Minister or Secretary of State he can be trusted to exercise the discretion given to him in a responsible way, in a way for which he is prepared to answer to Parliament, and not in an arbitrary way.
11.15 p.m.
I would have thought that it was not right to say that these rights should be given to boroughs automatically on their attaining the population figure of 75,000. There are a number of circumstances to be taken into account. In the case of a large borough regard would be had to the question whether the clerk was a whole-time clerk; to whether, even if it were a whole-time clerkship, two adjoining petty sessional divisions could be added to


his duties because he was not fully occupied in the work of the borough.
In the case of the quarter sessions for a county, there would have to be consideration of whether the division was large enough to be saddled with matters like the scales of remuneration of the clerks and the staffs independently of the other divisions of the county: also, for instance, in counties like Lancashire, whether a magistrates' courts committee for the whole of the county would be, as it might well be in Lancashire, too large and unwieldy for efficient working. There are all sorts of considerations of that kind which it would be proper for the Home Secretary to take into account in the exercise of his functions under the Schedule.
I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman had very much confidence in the second part of his Amendment, which suggested that if the Home Secretary refused to make an order he should state his reasons. That, I think, would be a very unreasonable thing, quite an unusual thing. In fact, I should think it would be an unprecedented thing where discretionary powers of this sort are vested in a Minister responsible to Parliament for the exercise of them. I hope that on reflection the hon. and learned Member will not wish to press the Amendment.

Mr. Marlowe: When the learned Attorney-General says that I pursued the latter part of the Amendment without confidence he is right. I was confident that it was a good Amendment, but I had no confidence that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would accept it. As to the earlier part of the Amendment, I accept the explanation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given, although I would have thought that in many respects it would have been desirable that the consideration which he says the Home Secretary will take into account should at least be indicated in the Bill. But I do not wish to pursue the matter further, because the Home Secretary did say, earlier, that he appreciated that there was a particular problem in relation to Hove, and that he would have to take that into consideration and would give the matter his thought.
I would like to emphasise to the Home Secretary that every one of the considerations which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave as desirable criteria is applicable to Hove. That, I think, should keep him to his promise. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Marlowe: I beg to move, in page 55, line 12, after "a," to insert, "justices' clerk to act as."
The principle behind this Amendment is similar to that behind the one I moved in relation to Clause 26. I thought there was some justification for it, and the right hon. Gentleman said that it was not quite clear. The point which I have in mind, and which the Home Secretary will appreciate, is that usually the clerk of the peace is a person who acts as clerk to the county council. I want to ensure that the clerk of the magistrates' courts committee shall be a justices' clerk, and that we prevent his being the clerk of the county council. I do not want the clerk of the peace to be capable of being magistrates' courts committee clerk and county council clerk, because these two may, from time to time, come into conflict, particularly over matters of expenditure. There must be occasions when the magistrates' courts committee desires to recover expenditure from the county council. Then there would be the unfortunate position of the clerk of the peace acting as the clerk to the magistrates courts' committee and the clerk to the county council. I do not think it is desirable, and it might give rise to a conflict of interest. If the Amendment is accepted, I hope this difficulty will be obviated.

The Attorney-General: I appreciate the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind but I would have thought that the magistrates' courts committee, in considering the various candidates for the position, would also have it in mind. I should have thought it would have been one of the factors when deciding that a particular candidate is not suitable. There is some disagreement about this matter. The Society of Clerks of the Peace, without organising a dinner, have expressed the view that the clerk to the committee should be the clerk of the peace, and the Justices Clerks Society, also without organising a dinner, take the


view that he should be a justices' clerk. We think that the matter should be left to the committee to decide who their clerk shall be. This was fully discussed in another place, and there the view taken was that it would be wrong to tie rigidly the hands of the committee in a matter of this kind, and we feel that this is the right view.

Mr. Marlowe: In view of the fact that it is impossible to carry this Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Fifth Schedule.— (MODIFICATIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1937, IN RELATION TO JUSTICES' CLERKS AND THEIR STAFF.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 59, line 21, after "(1)" to insert "(5) or (6)."
This and the following Amendments are consequential to the Amendments made to Clause 23 which were accepted and I hope the Committee will be willing to agree to them. May I also thank the Committee for the expedition they have shown in dealing with this important Bill so that there is a reasonable chance of getting it on to the Statute Book in this Session. I am grateful to all hon. Members and would like to thank everyone for the way they have helped us.
Further Amendments made: In page 59, line 38, after "Act," insert "and."
In page 59, line 40, after "(1)," insert "(5) or (6)."
In page 59, line 41, leave out from "committee," to end of line 43.—[Mr. Ede.]
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth and Seventh Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 220.]

PUBLIC MEETINGS, LONDON (COMPLAINTS)

11.25 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

Mr. Weitzman: It is with great reluctance and extreme regret that I am compelled to raise this matter, which I have called "Unrest in North London," on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. I represent a constituency which, like the constituencies adjacent to it, contains mixed communities of Gentiles and Jews. They are simple, ordinary, hard-working British citizens, men and women, who have lived together peaceably, pursuing the same interests, and respected one by the other. Recently, however, there has been something which is beginning to poison that relationship, leading to disquiet and anxiety, and bringing with it fear and frustration to a considerable number of people. I refer to the Fascist meetings which are being held, to the scurrilous statements made at them, and to the number of cases of physical violence which occur at them, or elsewhere. During the hearing of a case against a young man named Shaw, who was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for a most brutal assault on two schoolboys, counsel representing the young man told the court that his mind had been so poisoned by propaganda disseminated at Fascist meetings that he acted with violence. I should remind the House also, that although this young man stated that he was one of a number of 20 concerned, there was considerable surprise and even indignation that nobody else was arrested and charged with participation in the offence.
I would like to draw attention to Section 5 of the Public Order Act of 1936. It reads:
Any person who, in any public place, or at any public meeting, uses threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence.
It is a useful provision for matters of the kind with which I am concerned but, for some extraordinary reason, I cannot find grounds why, as I understand it, this Section is disregarded rather than observed. I suggest to the House that,


if this provision had been properly implemented, a great amount of the trouble which has arisen would have been avoided; and, even more important, trust in the police, which is so necessary in these times, would not have been endangered. As at present interpreted, this Section is treated as if its sole purpose were to protect the speakers at these meetings, no matter what those speakers may say. I have always understood that it is the right of any person to attend a meeting, and yet, in these cases, if any person attending one of the meetings hears the Jewish community grossly insulted, and desires to protest, as is his right, he is the subject of police action, and not the speaker.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said in this House that when complaints were made, proof was not forthcoming, but I can give some examples of the sort of insults of which I complain. I want to quote to the House some examples of what has been said at these meetings. Each one of these examples has been reported to the Home Office and I say that, although they obviously violate the clear meaning of the fifth Section of the Public Order Act, no satisfactory reply has been received from the Home Office, and no satisfactory action has followed.
On 18th January, 1948, at Hereford Street, a Fascist speaker made the allegation to a crowd that "the Jews lived off brothels." The attention of the Home Office was drawn to this matter and the reply was not that it was not said, but that the remark* was the result of provocation from the audience.
On 6th June, 1948, at Ridley Road, the statement was made by a speaker that "Jews live off brothels and sweat shops." On the same day, at Hereford Street, the speaker made the statement: "The scum was allowed to concentrate here and Hitler did a good job against a certain people."
Both these statements led to a question in the House and the reply was that the matter was being referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Nothing further happened. At Lewisham, on 30th November, 1948, the speaker, talking about a Jewish public meeting, said: "Can you imagine what a stink they made, all that number of Yids together?"

Reported to the Home Office, the reply was that though police reporters were present, they had not heard the remark.
On 1st December, 1948, at Trebovir Road, Earls Court, the most disgusting and lying remarks were made about the Jews and the Talmudic teachings. The speaker added that though he might get 12 months for what he said, he challenged the inspector to report his remarks to the Home Secretary. The reply of the Home Secretary to a complaint was that these remarks were not to be found in the notes of the official shorthand takers or heard by the police.
On 5th December, 1948, at West Green Road, Tottenham, a wild attack on Jewish citizens was made by a speaker. In fact, the senior police officer present warned the speaker. The reply from the Home Office admitted that the speeches were objectionable and that the warning by the inspector was justified, adding that it had a sobering effect on the speaker in question. I should like to read to the House what the Home Office calls a sober speech, the remarks made by the speaker after he had been warned. "Jews are filthy, parasitic vermin, feeding on the political body of this country. The sooner we get rid of this lot the better. Hitler closed the doors of his gas chambers too soon. If I had my way I should send all Jews to Palestine with a one-way ticket and then supply the Arabs with atom bombs." Can one imagine a more disgraceful abuse of Section 5 of the Public Order Act. If anything calls for action under that Act, that statement did.
I have quoted a number of statements. They are, unfortunately, typical of many. They continue right through the present year. In some cases, although shorthand notetakers are sent to meetings by the police they apparently do not present a verbatim report, because when complaint is made of remarks heard by persons who are ready to come forward, the answer is given that there is no evidence in the notes taken by the police. Here I point out that an offer was made that these persons were prepared to come forward and give evidence.
What is the attitude taken up by the Home Secretary in regard to this matter? I know his task is a difficult one, but how can it be said that the remarks of the kind I have quoted should be allowed to be made without any action of any


kind. Is it surprising, having regard to these quotations, that there is reason for disquiet at the licence given to these speakers to carry on a hateful campaign against a self-respecting and law-abiding section of citizens? Is it to be wondered at that the Jewish community feels disquiet? They hear the most wicked statements made about themselves and their religion. They expect, and they are entitled to expect, that they shall be protected against this foul abuse of freedom of speech, a freedom taken advantage of by those people who openly state they will do away with this freedom if they come to power.
I do not underestimate the difficulties of the police. I know that in the main they are a fine body of men anxious to do their duty I realise that they are understaffed. Yet there is no lack of police to attend Fascist processions or attend speakers at Fascist meetings. A short time ago the Home Secretary reminded us that the police were only civilians in uniform enforcing the law Apparently the view is taken that to dress a civilian in police uniform is immediately to give to him an unchallengeable claim to veracity and make any statement by a civilian in civilian clothes unacceptable as a statement of fact. Surely, it cannot be believed that every statement laid before the Home Office by reliable observers is inaccurate and every statement from the police must be accepted as a matter of course. That is certainly not the way in which to inspire the confidence of the public in the Home Office or in the police.
It is said that if people do not like Fascist meetings, they should not attend them—a new restriction on our freedom. If they do not attend these meetings, then the poison is spread among the audience without protest, as in the case of Shaw to which I referred. If they do attend, what does one expect a Jewish ex-Service man or a Jewish mother who has lost her sons in the war to do, if foul statements of this kind are made? The very meetings are held in many cases in Jewish districts and it is obviously the intention of those who organise them to provoke the Jews who live in the vicinity. It is wrong that ex-Service men, many with outstanding records, who have spent years in fighting Fascism, should now be told by the Home Secretary they must suffer in silence while vile abuse of them and

their religion is made by Fascists who spent the war years in internment as suspected traitors. I do not ask the Home Secretary to do anything new. I do not ask him to engage in any revolutionary course of conduct. But I ask him to give ear to complaints from civilians as he does to representations from the police.
I ask that protection should be given and that Section 5 of the Public Order Act should be applied in proper fashion. I ask that it should be implemented and that these persons who utter these vile and lying accusations should be properly called to account. From the records I have seen, out of many complaints made in the last 18 months, only seven cases of speakers making abusive remarks appear to have been dealt with, and that list includes one person who was charged three times. On the other hand, there appear to be many oases of persons who protested who have been charged.
It is vital that the spread of this false, poisonous propaganda should be brought to an end. I submit that the strict application of this Section will have that effect, and that in my constituency, as in others, people will be able once again to breathe freely and live together in friendship and in trust. I am sure this is the true desire of every decent citizen, irrespective of religion. I would remind the Home Secretary of the words he used on 22nd November:
., the insistence of the Government on the maintenance of law and order, without consideration of the political, religious, or racial affiliations of any individual citizen, who may be the subject of the attention of the Police, either as in need of protection or for a breach of the law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1949, Vol. 470, c. 212.]
I respectfully submit the course I have suggested will have that result.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I only intervene for a few moments because I have taken an interest in this subject in the past year and wish to express my disappointment at the ineffective action of the Home Office in this regard. When the matter of vile action and conduct on the part of a certain section of the community was under consideration about 12 months ago, I drew the attention of the Home Secretary to this kind of language because I had heard it myself. I had hoped, ere now, that there would have been some response from the Home Office. We really cannot allow these


things to go on. I do not know if the Under-Secretary at the Home Office has heard the kind of statements that are made at these meetings. If he did go to these meetings, I am sure he would feel ashamed that in this country we should allow this sort of thing to go on, and I hope, if tonight he cannot give a very favourable answer and a more specific answer than has been given up to now, he will personally go and try to get his right hon. Friend to go with him to hear for themselves the kind of things which really are a blot on our public life. If he does, I am sure he will be as ashamed as I am and will take some action more effective than has been taken up to now.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Janner: I would like to deal, for one or two moments, with some points additional to those which have been raised. I need hardly say that, from the knowledge of most of us here, the facts which have been stated and the points which have been made by my hon. Friend are certainly correct and that investigation has shown that the type of action on the part of men of the description of those to whom he has referred is shocking. I do not propose to take up the time of the House for long as the Minister has to reply, but I do want to ask, in addition to my hon. Friends requests, how can the following facts which I shall quote be considered as consistent with appropriate action having been taken under Section 5 of the Public Order Act?
There is no doubt that at the present time we are suffering from a crime wave which cannot be regarded as otherwise than extremely serious. One of the answers given why no more can be done to suppress it invariably is that there is a shortage of police. The Metropolitan area, I believe, requires something like 5,000 more police. This is not a time when we can permit the use of police to protect an organisation which is deliberately out to crush freedom. I would like to refer to the startling numbers of police occupied at these meetings.
I understand from investigations i have made that something like 10 per cent. of every audience are policemen and in my opinion that is an inordinate number for what claims to be regarded as a peaceful demonstration.
At one meeting, the audience of which numbered something like 60, there were 16 foot police and two police cars in the background. Another meeting of 100 people was attended by 15 police. One of 75 people had 12 foot police and a police van in reserve. A meeting of 250 was attended by 26 foot police with two police vans in reserve. These figures, I understand, are the minimum and only refer to uniformed police, and there were probably more police there than I have indicated.
When one turns to meetings at which their leader himself attended, one gets a further picture of the wastage of effort and time forced upon the police by these activities of the Fascists. Mosley's first meeting on 1st May last year was attended by some 450 supporters and practically every supporter had two policemen to protect him, including 48 mounted police and numerous squad cars, radio cars and motor cycles. One could give numerous instances of similar attendances of police. If the police have to go to these meetings in such numbers, surely this shows that the commission of a serious breach of the peace is anticipated by the authorities.
I would ask that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department should let us know definitely that he will prevent these meetings from taking place particularly in districts in which the assistance of police has to be sought to the extent to which I have referred and in which it is obvious that there is a breach of the peace contemplated by the police themselves.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I intervene for a few moments because I represent a constituency adjacent to that of the hon. Member for Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman). I myself have been present at some of these meetings at Ridley Road and elsewhere. I think one must recognise that the police have a very difficult task. But at the same time there is very great concern among all people in East and North-East London about the way in which these meetings are held—meetings at which continuous provocation by Fascists takes place and at which there is every appearance of their having police protection.
There is not the slightest doubt that the Jewish population and the English


population of those parts of London are subject to very great strain by this continuous scurrilous language and deliberate provocation. I very much hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us that energetic action will be taken under the Public Order Act.

11.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): This is by no means the first time that we have debated this subject in this House. I hope the House by now appreciates that this is an exceedingly difficult matter to deal with. I am sure, and I think we all accept, that in the last 18 months or more there have been, particularly in this area of East and North London, a considerable number of speeches made which, to use the words of the hon. Member for Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), are, to say the least of it, scurrilous. They are abusive and unpleasant statements of which we would all disapprove.
In almost every instance when these statements have been reported to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and complaints have been made to the Home Office, he has given his personal attention to this matter. Indeed, there have been few weeks in which he has not personally had occasion to take notice of this difficult problem.
Full inquiries have been made into every complaint. I do not need to emphasise—because my hon. Friend who initiated the Debate did so—what a difficult position the police are in. None of us here want them to be in any way a judge of what is a proper and not a proper political meeting except in so far as they have reason to anticipate a breach of the law. Their duty is to enforce the law, and it is none of their duty beyond that to approve or disapprove of what may be said. I have been asked tonight, very reasonably, to give an assurance that the law, and in particular Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which my hon. Friend quoted, will be fully enforced. That is a matter to which my right hon. Friend has given attention for many months past. He has sometimes been worried himself by the first accounts of what has occurred to find that no action has been taken. Each case has been fully checked to see whether that

Section of the Act could have been used. May I remind hon. Members of the requirements of the Act? It does not bring within the mischief of the Section a statement which is merely abusive or merely insulting. Those words in the early part of the Section
uses threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour,
are followed by
with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned.
Those are the additional points which have to be proved over and above the insulting or abusive nature of the words.
On the question of whether particular words do or do not fall within that Section, the final arbiters are, of course, the courts. The object of the police, one need hardly state, in bringing a prosecution, is to get a conviction. While they may have occasion to bring a case where they think a conviction likely but not certain, I think the House would agree that nothing would do more harm than for the police to bring prosecutions which frequently fail. Indeed they have had some rather unhappy experiences where they have thought a particular sentence or passage in a speech might fall within the mischief of that Section, where they have prosecuted, and where the prosecution has failed, and where on numerous subsequent occasions the same speaker has used those sentences over and over again, adding that the courts had already said that it was quite all right. Therefore it will be appreciated that a great deal of care has to be given by the police, and those who advise them on questions of law, before they bring prosecutions if there is a considerable likelihood that the prosecution will fail.

Mr. George Porter: Surely within the meaning of the Act it is incumbent upon the police not only to bring prosecutions but to take such steps as they think fit to stop a breach of the peace if they think something is likely to incite? It is not a question of taking action in the courts but taking immediate action to stop the meeting where it is likely that the occasion may lead to a breach of the peace.

Mr. Younger: That has been done on a number of occasions, but it is perfectly clear that they must be satisfied that the


conditions of the Section are fulfilled or likely to be fulfilled. My right hon. Friend has in fact made it clear to the police that in his view, if the words are of a kind they think are likely to lead to a breach of the peace, it is their duty to take action and not to wait for it to occur. The fact is that all these matters are tested in the courts to decide whether or not a particular speech is one whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned. They inevitably ask, first, whether there was a breach of the peace, and if the answer is "No," then they ask, "Did it look as if there was going to be?"
In many of these cases a large proportion of the audience are either police, observers from some of the organisations interested in the activities of these fascist bodies, or supporters. In a large majority of cases—in all of them that I have been able to trace since my hon. Friend gave me notice of his intention to raise this matter—there has been no likelihood, at that moment and in those circumstances that a breach of the peace was going to occur. That does not entirely rule out any possibility of prosecution simply because of the nature of the words themselves, but hon. Members will appreciate that it is not a strong position to be in for a prosecutor in court to have to say that there was no breach of the peace nor did he expect one. It very often is the simple fact that there was nobody present at all except one observer from the Board of Deputies, one police officer, and three or four members of the Union itself. I draw attention to that as a considerably limiting factor on the prosecutions that can be brought.
As regards complaints which have been made, and the statements—some of which I recognise among those my hon. Friend mentioned—I cannot deal with them all, but I can say of those I recognise that we were very careful when the complaints came in to check them against the notes, in some cases shorthand notes of police officers present, but not all, and in some cases there were discrepancies. The House will appreciate that a prosecution has to be based on actual words, and not on the gist of a passage.

Mr. Weitzman: Is it not a fact that these observers were ready and willing to come forward and give evidence as to the

words actually used? I have a copy of a letter in which that offer was made.

Mr. Younger: I do not know whether that is the same letter as the one I was about to quote. I was coming to that. My hon. Friend will appreciate that he must look at this from the point of view of those who have to take official action. We received a complaint from the Board of Deputies—this is an old case, in June, 1948—and said we would investigate it. We wrote to them, and in the course of the letter said this:
It would be of assistance if you would let me have the names of persons who support these reports so that, if it should be decided that proceedings shall be taken, consideration may be given to the possibility of giving evidence.
The reply we received from the Press Officer contained this passage:
As to the observers who submit these reports, they all act under the direction of the district committee of the Jewish Defence Committee. They would, of course, give evidence on subpoena, or if called upon, but until then they do not wish their names to be given.
The effect of that is that we are invited to bring a case, subpoena them and trust to luck. They do not wish their names to be disclosed until we subpoena them. In many of these cases the shorthand notes of the police officers do not agree with the complaints. We specifically asked that we might know who the persons were, and we were informed that they would be prepared to come forward and their names would be revealed after the proceedings had been started.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: What qualifications are required of police officers who make these reports?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend knows what the qualifications are, but I am sorry that I have not time to say all I really wished to say because my time has been cut rather short.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o' Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.